The Fan Voice: "I Cry 'Foul!'"

By Live or Die Magic | December 4th, 2008

Anyone else think that NBA referees have too much influence on the outcome of games? Anyone else bothered by the fact that two quick fouls on Dwight Howard completely changes how our offense runs and how other teams play us?

The referees’ interpretation of the rules is what is in effect. And since each ref may see things differently, and even a single ref might vary in how he/she interprets a rule violation, it leads to a nearly infinite number of possible foul calls. Look at how many times a ref blows the whistle on a player who’s back is to that ref. In some cases, the ref blowing the whistle might be the one farthest away from the play.

These variations from ref to ref and game to game (or star player to star player!) leads to subjectivity playing a part in a game that otherwise has very specific, clear-cut factors determining the outcome. Think about it...the ball either goes in the basket or it doesn’t. Either player “A” grabs the rebound or player “B” grabs it. A player catches the pass or he doesn’t. A basket is either one point, two points, or three points depending on where the player is shooting from. But correctly determining whether a player drew a charge or committed a block is far more nuanced.

I’m not suggesting something as crazy as doing away with the refs entirely. Having a third party overseeing the game is necessary. With a greater emphasis and use of instant replay, the NBA has attempted to ensure that fewer games are decided on a referee’s mistakes. But what about the seemingly arbitrary rule that a player is only allowed 6 fouls per contest?

First off, the 6 fouls rule might be in the NBA rulebook, but it is hardly a concrete concept. In fact, it is predicated on the same referee’s subjectivity as mentioned above. The six fouls each player receives are the six fouls that the referees saw or chose to call. Of all the fouls called in an NBA game, surely some of them weren’t actually fouls. Likewise, how many players – especially stars – get away with committing multiple fouls that are not called as such? And let’s not even bring up (too late!) the NBA practice of a lesser-named player raising his hand to accept credit for a foul that his bigger-named teammate actually committed!

I’m hardly the first person to cry “foul” about this, in fact, respected Sports Illustrated columnist Jack McCallum did a piece similar to this just last year. Still, no one seems to have a good idea as to why this can’t be changed or even why it was enacted to begin with. In 1947, when the 6 foul rule was introduced, fouling wasn’t as prolific. Perhaps it even seemed outlandish for a player to collect that many fouls in a single game. Maybe the league didn’t think that the foul limit would be of great impact. But now, the 6 foul limit has a tremendous impact on the game. Even if players, star players in particular, don’t foul out of a game, collecting multiple fouls still affects their ability to stay in the game for long stretches. This is magnified even further when you consider that coaches often pull star players with multiple fouls from the game in the last few minutes of quarters, when heightened game play is common.

I think raising the foul limit would have a positive impact on the game. Eliminating it entirely would be even better, but baby steps people, baby steps. For any purests out there screaming, well, you know, consider that it wouldn’t affect free throws, since a shooting foul, whether it was the defensive players 1st or 7th foul, would still send the offensive player to the line. So that argument doesn’t hold up. And since it would allow for the star players to stay in the game longer, it benefits all NBA stakeholders, right?

I’d like to think that it would also mean the NBA would no longer have to deal with players whining and complaining about foul calls, since the prospect of fouling out of the game would be gone. However, I’m cynical enough to think that some NBA players (hmm...Rasheed Wallace maybe?) feel they have never committed a foul in their careers. Ever. So, the complaining about foul calls is likely as ingrained in the fabric of the game as the “give-and-go.”

So, let’s hear it. Do you think there would be drawbacks to altering the 6 foul rule? Can you provide justification for the status quo? Or do you simply agree with me completely and totally?


This message was not subject of approval by the NBA or the Orlando Magic. The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of the Orlando Magic or the NBA, but solely the writer.

It's an interesting idea, the problem I would have with it is right now that is the only thing keeping teams from fouling Dwight the second he steps on the court. If a team with a bunch of bigs that are just there to use up 6 fouls were to have unlimited or even just a few more that just adds to the beating that Dwight will take.

I don't like all of the bad calls but I have an even bigger problem with ref's that allow teams to practice ninjitsu on Dwight in the post but when he brushes by them it's a foul. Add this to the items that Stern should get up off his rear end and correct, a foul should be a foul regardless of whether the guy is 6-11 270 or 6-7 215, that is their fault for not hitting the weight room.

Good points Marc. I know Dwight doesn't like the pounding. On the other hand, this hasn't affected Shaquille O'Neal's longevity or long-term impact. And besides, I am still hoping that Howard follows Karl Malone's career path: a player who started with poor FT shooting but who gradually improved his percentage to the point that he is the career leader in FTs made.

Personally I would be against the foul limit for the same reason Marc mentioned.

I think they should however call techs and regular fouls for flopping and jumping into defenders to draw fouls.

I am really tired of jump shooters jumping into or intentional throwing out arms and legs to entangle defenders. To me watching a neverending parade to the free throw line turns games into snooze fests. But something needs to be done balance things better and protect players from injuries.

quote:

Originally posted by bhnole:
Personally I would be against the foul limit for the same reason Marc mentioned.

I guess you guys are presenting a perspective unique to Magic fans, seeing as how both of the dominant, but FT poor, big men of the last 15 years both played for us. But look at the rest of the league, this issue is not a problem league-wide. Players that hack typically pay for it at the line, at least to a greater extent than we see in the Magic's case.

I think if the flopping were ever addressed along with those stupid fouls where the jump shooter initiates contact that BH mentioned then fouls wouldn't be such an issue. Think of how many stupid calls like that we see a game. I can't remember if we were talking about this at the game but the times that Dwight has been in foul trouble he has picked up weak offensive ones. I think most of those come from flopping.

There has to be some type of accountability or punishment for the fouls. If not you will end up seeing teams using the hack-a-shaq/dwight for 48 minutes a game. You will also see players constantly not playing defense. They will just hang to a guy's arm and pull. Why play solid defense if all you have to do is push, shove, grab, pull, etc the other guy and stop him from scoring. There is no punishment, so foul away.

It would also affect the way games are played. Games might end up being a shootaround and not a game. 48 minutes of free throw shooting.

Now I do agree that some of the foul calls on Dwight and others are retarded and not justified, but like you said, humans are officiating, so we have to accept that there is going to be some error, and considering that blowing the whistle is up to the guy's(or girl's) interpretation of the rule, it does add to the problem and there is always going to be a gray area in there.

They should hold the ref's accountable and there should be more of a review board checking up on their work.

But getting rid of the 6 foul rule in my opinion, would simply not work and would completely change the game as we know it...

Question is now, Why can't they go back to officiating like the late 80's and early 90's. Guys use to tear each other up and nothing would be called, it was part of the game. Today a little stupid bump and people start flying around and calls are made.

I think that the over protection of the players/stars also has changed the game for the worst.

Hmmmm, maybe move toward something completely different.

No foul limit, but set a limit on the number of times you can foul an individual player, after you pass that limit, any free throws earned from foul calls against that player can be taken by anyone on the team, currently on the court. Go ahead and foul dwight 10-15 times a game, but you are going to end up sending Nelson or JJ to the line.

quote:

Originally posted by echo4papa:
Hmmmm, maybe move toward something completely different.

No foul limit, but set a limit on the number of times you can foul an individual player, after you pass that limit, any free throws earned from foul calls against that player can be taken by anyone on the team, currently on the court. Go ahead and foul dwight 10-15 times a game, but you are going to end up sending Nelson or JJ to the line.

It's chilling...subversive even! I love it!

That is actually not a bad idea. I mean it will keep the guys on the court no matter what. It won't disturb the game that much, meaning the star players can play the regular rotations and see no real change in performance or game flow.

But I think it will see an increase in stats also. All the players that are affected by this now, when they have to get out of a game for fouls or whatever are also not scoring, rebounding blocking, etc,etc for that period of time. So not needing to sit down after picking up 2 fouls in the first 3 minutes of a game, will bump all the stats up for most players.

Can this be a problem for, let's say the purists that want to protect basketball records and legends? Would they protest because some scores and averages might be insanely high and won't represent real stats in their eyes?

I don't think it would be a big deal, but I am sure some would complain.

quote:

Originally posted by Live or Die Magic:

quote:

Originally posted by echo4papa:
Hmmmm, maybe move toward something completely different.

No foul limit, but set a limit on the number of times you can foul an individual player, after you pass that limit, any free throws earned from foul calls against that player can be taken by anyone on the team, currently on the court. Go ahead and foul dwight 10-15 times a game, but you are going to end up sending Nelson or JJ to the line.

It's chilling...subversive even! I love it!

Put me down for that one as well. That is the best idea I've heard you come up with Echo.

Another idea that would be a little less subversive would be to have their be 2 different limits: the current one, and a higher one. Once the higher one is reached, instead of every non-offensive foul becoming a shooting foul, every non-offensive foul becomes a clear path foul: i.e. two shots and possession.

It's a valid concern, but it has some associated ramifications.

A couple of things that would happen if the limit was abolished:

1) Defense would be played much more aggessively, likely resulting in 75-74 type scoring games. Scoring would likely go down. Other than folks from Detroit, did many NBA fans truly enjoy watching the brand of basketball played by the Bad Boys? This would now be how nearly all the games would be played.

2) The games would last forever, with each team taking 50-60 FTs a game. B-O-R-I-N-G.

The league will not make any changes that they perceive will make the game less enjoyable to watch. A superstar won't be able to be a superstar if everytime he has an opportunity to make a dynamic play, his opponent is free to floor him. Every time Chris Paul drives past Jameer, then Jameer would simply push him to the ground as long as Jameer knows the only ramification would be that Paul would have to hit 2 FTs instead of a lay-up.

Echo's idea of allowing any player on the floor to take FTs when the fouling player commits his 6th (or more) foul is a great idea. DoM's suggestion would also work.

Nice discussion-provoking blog, LOD.

Great blog LOD. Really makes for good conversation.

I personally do not have any major problems with the six foul rule. The one major area of concern I have is flopping. This seems to me at least to be the biggest reason why our best player Dwight picks up quick fouls. When ever he gets 2 quick fouls I can almost guarantee one of them is a flop. I think overall the refs do a great job aside from the 2006 NBA Finals games 3-6, Game 6 of the 2002 WCF and Bret Hart vs. Shawn Michaels in Montreal. I just wonder how when guys are going at full speed if you could tell a flop is a flop in live action. Dwight is like Shaq where I think alot of the times the refs truly do not know. I think if they could go in and look at tapes after the fact and assess technicals this could curb some of this. I would make it harsher for blatant flopping like 2 or 3 technicals so to keep in line with the 10 technical rule.

If we are going to not DQ players from the game after 6 I agree with DOM's idea of two shots and possesion. At least this would cure the hack a Dwight because even if he misses one or maybe two the team still keeps the ball.

Good argument for conversation, I like it.

I agree with the opinion of all the people above that are against the change of this rule, backing up their arguments and adding the fact that more fouls could easily result in more injuries.

From my point of view, there're two main problems that need to be asserted:

1) Floppers. But in a larger definition of the term. It's sad to see defenders simulating a charge, but in the same line of reasoning, a lot of defensive fouls are given because the attacker is able to mislead the call.
Here in Europe, this kind of actions are punished with technicals fouls (on the simulator) more and more. And a tech leads to two free throws here, something that NBA could use, cause a lot of people get the tech thinking that one single free throw is not a big deal.

2) Whiners. Refs job is really hard right now, cause they couldn't concentrate on the game 100%, considering that around them any player and coach has something to tell.
This lead to overprotection of star players (and coaches), trying to keep them happy. So the result of this process is that everyone thinks that he has the right to whine 48 min a game.

That's something complicated to solve. A sport that is not popular in America, rugby, is using a system to protect the ref and it works very well. There're 30 players on the field (15 for every team) but only the two captains could speak to the ref, unless is him calling out a single player. Every single infraction to this rule is punished with a ten meters loss on the field or even a ten minutes ejection.

Difficult to apply in basketball, but I would be happy if only the coach would be allowed to speak (and eventually whine) with the refs. Any player breaking that rule would immediately get a tech foul.
Refs would have a easier job without the costant distraction of players voice in their ears, players would be more concentrated on the game, the game would be faster and without useless interructions and the public would see only basketball in the arena, avoiding boring and endless discussions (let them to the politics...)