View Full Version : Link on Jerry Krause and the 3-pt. line

03-30-2007, 08:16 AM

03-30-2007, 09:02 AM
"something" done to make the last 3-5 minutes of a close game less dependant on the foul and timeout, beat the clock, sort of finish, that can sometimes take a half hour or more.

One possibility I recall, for e.g., involved a suggestion that if there is a deliberate foul, then the team that is fouled would shoot, but then get the ball back.

this would kill the advantage of stopping the clock and fouling.

It might also involve less timeouts. Maybe no timeouts, or one or two timeouts at certain points with only a few minutes left.

In other words, the game within the game near the end that the rules now allow, often have little to do with the rest of the game.

fwiw, I'd like to see the last 5-10 minutes of a game take no more than an additional five or so minutes. fwiw.

03-30-2007, 09:20 AM
gamagin... amen.

03-30-2007, 10:02 AM
That rule is in place now but the refs almost never call it that way. An intentional foul could be called often in the above situation but refs don't make that call. I'm with you Gamagin, I don't believe a team should gain advantage by fouling.

03-30-2007, 12:42 PM
I don't mind the extra time it takes at the end of games. To win a game you should be good at all aspects of the game that includes foul shooting and three point defense. If you are not good at both then teams can expose those weaknesses at the end of games. However I do agree you shouldn't be able to "hug" a player to foul there has to be an attempt to go for the ball. If there is no attempt then it should be intentional but this is a subjective decision that has to be made by the refs.

03-30-2007, 01:02 PM
Hondo: of course, you are right. there is a rule.

that would make it even easier to agree on the comte that with (for e.g.) 5 mins left, deliberate fouls will be called as such and the team fouled will get the ball back.

Foreverzag: I don't think a game against the clock is a true test of skills. I think it's a game against the clock.

It's a separate game within the one we saw up to that point. I don't think they are particularly related. It's just something more or else each team needs to work on, perhaps get some specialists trained to help out in that sort of crunch.

teams will anyway, imo, work on whatever it takes to win. At that point, it doesn't matter who you may be playing. Your opponent is the clock.

My point is I would like the fate of the game to be back between the players on the floor, mano a mano, not the coaches, management of the clock, fouls and timeouts.

fwiw, the more the outcome is forced on the players, the more interesting it becomes for me and I sugeest, all fans.

I want us to have the ball and our fate in our own hands, not the other team attempting to foul our weakest shooter in order to prevent same.

finally, I don't know if any of you noticed, but I saw what (for me) seemed like a new wrinkle during an NCAA game (i forget which one).

But, the defending team fouled another team's player before the ball was inbounded. naturally, they chose the man they wanted on the charity stripe and there was no time taken off the clock.

brilliant move, if you want a smart strategist making the calls and finding a possible weakness in the rules.

bad move, imo, if you want competitors, thinkers and reactions on the floor to determine the outcome.

best regards,