My issue is that most of those end-of-the-game fouls are obviously intentional, but they are not called that way.
The NBA has recognized that those types of fouls are indeed intentional, but there is no added penalty, unless the contact is excessive. Plus, hack-a-Shaq is no longer permitted on a player who doesn’t possess the ball. If that occurs, the fouled player is awarded one free throw and his team retains possession.
Thank you for the clarification. I heard that, in the old days and under certain circumstances, a player would be awarded “3 to make 2”. In other words, he would get three free throws if needed in an attempt to make two. I think they should reinstitute that in those last 2 minute situations where the trailing team interminably lengthens the game with one intentional foul after another.
Or one possibility sometimes mentioned: all fouls after, say, 2 minutes left in game give the fouled team the choice of free-throws or keeping possession on the floor.
I think the reason that the NBA likes it the way it is, is because it makes the game more exciting. The changes you’re all proposing would just make the 30 seconds or whatever a done deal with the winning team just running out the clock.
Correct. Same case in the NCAA. As long as the fouled team can successfully inbound the ball, they win.
I remember that from youth. I think it only went to “3TM2” after a certain number of fouls happened in a quarter. College (and maybe the pros) had “1 and 1” where if you made the first one, you got to try for second one.
I suggest something like hockey rules in the last 3 or so minutes of the game. Players who commit fouls are sent to the penalty box for 30 seconds and the game continues 5 on 4 in the meantime.
Then, you’re just handing the game to the team in the lead. The NBA wants games to be exciting to the very end whenever possible.
Watching the last game of the Knicks final, I was shocked by how many commercial breaks there were at the end of the game. I don’t watch much basketball, mostly hockey. They want all the eyeballs for that last minute that still has three or four commercial breaks in it.
I mean, what’s the goal here? Do you want it to always be possible for the trailing team to catch up? That obviously can’t be the case, because eventually, the game is over. Why is it so much worse that a team can’t catch up in the last minute, than that they can’t catch up after the buzzer?
The goal is to bring in as much advertising dollars as possible, I imagine.
Some games are too far apart, so people will turn it off when there’s a couple of minutes left. But, for those that are close, it’s in the NBA’s interest to make the last one to three minutes still worth watching.
Why are NFL fouls so much harder on the defense than the offense? Fans like to see scoring, so it brings in more ad dollars. Why did they speed up baseball with all the new rules? Fans were losing interest because the games dragged, so they were losing ad dollars. And so on and so forth.