PROPOSED RULE CHANGE: Unlimited fouls

[Rastapopoulos]

I guess I get the point of having players foul out - it provides strategy. But it also means that there are some players that we just don't get to see as much as we want to, and also it provides incentive for referee shenanigans. For example, Wilt Chamberlain NEVER ONCE fouled out. Is this because he didn't deserve to? Of course not - it's because refs realized that the fans would riot if they ejected the best player in history. It's as if the penalty for jaywalking were death. No jury (except one of psychopathic Trump voters, perhaps) would convict a jaywalker if this happened.

Anyway, I digress. Here's my suggestion. Keep the same rules for the first six fouls. But after that, let the player stay on, but now every time he fouls someone, wherever it happens, they get two FTs. After ten fouls, 3 FTs. Why not?

Of course, this has nothing to do with Nurkic. This is just an unbiased NBA opinion.

 

[illmatic99]

I've been saying something similar for a while and got a lot of pushback here the last time i posted on it. I wish they would add a foul allowed for OT or even a second OT.

Hell, how about if a guy gets a foul for every one after 6, you give him a tech also?

I just hate the idea of impactful players getting eliminated from the game because a ref is overzealous. If all foul calls were made consistently, it's one thing, but we know that doesn't happen.

 

[Chris Craig]

A change would be nice. The refs shouldn't be allowed to use fouls to decide games.

A rule change like that would take foul trouble out of the equation. More fouls would be called though to compensate.

 

[Pinwheel1]

The college game needs a rule change even more. Two quick fouls by a star player to start the game and they are done for the half. And with the way they call offensive fouls in college ball, it is really easy to pick those two up.

 

[HailBlazers]

Kent: In games Nurk fouls out we lose.
Nurk: Two fouls in twenty seconds #gameover.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

 

[PCmor7]

The CBA did this decades ago. I think the way they did the no foul-out rule was that it was as if the team committed a technical foul for every foul beyond No. 6. So it was a free throw and the ball.

 

[BonesJones]

I've been saying something similar for a while and got a lot of pushback here the last time i posted on it. I wish they would add a foul allowed for OT or even a second OT.

Hell, how about if a guy gets a foul for every one after 6, you give him a tech also?

I just hate the idea of impactful players getting eliminated from the game because a ref is overzealous. If all foul calls were made consistently, it's one thing, but we know that doesn't happen.

I like adding an additional foul for each OT.

 

[riverman]

Ref reviews.....fines and sit out a game if they blow too many calls...hit em in the pocketbook...at some point the game needs to allow players to play aggressive defense....no tolerance for flagrant fouls.....player gets one that's intentional and they are fined and out of the game....clean up the fouls...no haymakers to the nuts and also if you foul somebody intentionally, that team keeps the ball after free throws......I know none of this will happen but what the hell.....throw it out there. Give coaches 2 challenges each half and stop losing timeouts because you lose a challenge....if a play deserves a challenge it should be risk free. The refs should get the demerit if they blow the call ..not the team

 

[Further]

An alternative would be to count offensive and defensive fouls separately. They really are different and aren’t derived from the same actions.

 

[Tince]

I feel like this would result in more fouls and I'm not sure I want to watch games with even more free throws.

 

[MickZagger]

I've been saying something similar for a while and got a lot of pushback here the last time i posted on it. I wish they would add a foul allowed for OT or even a second OT.

Hell, how about if a guy gets a foul for every one after 6, you give him a tech also?

I just hate the idea of impactful players getting eliminated from the game because a ref is overzealous. If all foul calls were made consistently, it's one thing, but we know that doesn't happen.

Especially when so much of the game these days is predicated on trying to draw ticky tack fouls on your opponent.

 

[riverman]

Bring back hand checking

 

[calvin natt]

I vote no. Playing without fouling is kinda the point.

 

[MickZagger]

Bring back hand checking

Yes!