# Dick Vitale Wants Basketball to Eliminate Fouling Out



## bluballs (Mar 5, 2007)

I think he is off his meds!!! 

After foul trouble ruined the Greg Oden-Roy Hibbert battle last night and also cut Arron Afflalo's night short, Dick Vitale proposed something interesting on ESPN: Vitale suggested that college basketball should completely eliminate the age-old rule of disqualifying players after they accumulate a certain number of fouls.

Vitale first suggested that the NCAA should change its rule of fouling out after five fouls and match the NBA's rule of six. But then he went a step beyond that, saying that players should be allowed to stay in the game even after their sixth foul, but that a player's seventh foul and beyond should result in the opposing team getting two shots and the ball. That would allow a team to keep its best player on the floor, but would prevent players from being put out there solely to foul all night. I my opinion, the price per head would be way to high, even if it was for 5 bucks. 

It is a little odd, I guess, that basketball disqualifies players for racking up a certain number of fouls -- you don't see football players kicked out of the game for too many holding penalties. I guess it's possible that the NCAA could change to the six-foul rule, although with 40-minute games compared to 48 in the NBA, I'm not sure that's necessary. But I like the fact that Vitale is thinking outside the box here.

Ya that sounds very exciting....foul, foul, foul, lineup...shoot, lineup...shoot, lineup...shoot yawn. Good Times.


----------



## Geaux Tigers (Apr 26, 2004)

It's really not that bad of an idea. The only problem is that the game would become much rougher. People would hack and barrel through eachother much more. I think for now the 6 fouls would be much better though.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

That might be a short term reaction, but the two shot technical effect would control that problem, I think. This isn't a new suggestion, and it is a good one. I wish the NBA would try it.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

Vitale is off his rocker. Only he would come up with a stupid idea like this.


----------



## The Jopker (Sep 14, 2005)

I actually don't mind the idea of going to 6 fouls. A lot of times one player will pick up two quick fouls and then have to sit for extended stretches of time. However unlimited fouls is just ridiculous. Having that limit forces players to play defense properly and is an important strategic element of the game.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

If the refs continue to call ticky tack fouls, then yes they should expand to 6 fouls. However, I think the better idea is to come up with a standard set of fouls for ALL conferences. The Pac-10 shouldnt call fouls any different than the Big-10 and so on... 6 fouls is a lot for a 40 minute game if they call the games consistently in every conference.

So my suggstion would be to either move to 6 fouls or call all the fouls the same in every conference. Neither is likely to happen, but it is more realistic than suggesting fouls be removed from NCAA basketball.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I sort of agree, because coaches game plan around getting people in foul trouble, not around a certain scheme to win the basketball game. I guarantee if you take fouling out of college basketball, a lot of upsets wouldn't happen. If Greg Oden, Roy Hibbert, Brandan Wright and company never had to sit down due to foul trouble, you're looking at being dominated in the paint, game in and game out. I can't say I would be against that, but I just don't like that big men seem to be the only people who can get in major foul trouble, especially in the NCAA tournament.


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

His memory is definitely failing. IIRC, the Big East Conference experimented with the 6-foul rule a little more than 10 years ago. The result was a failure as the games became a hack fest. Completely slowed down the tempo with all of the extra fouls being committed.

With a 48-minute game, 6 fouls are OK. Not so in the 40-minute game of NCAA hoops.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

BlueBaron said:


> Vitale is off his rocker. Only he would come up with a stupid idea like this.


This isn't his idea. Bill Walton suggested in 1982 after colleges went to the 3 ref system.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

It doesn't usually seem to be a problem until it happens in the last 3 nationally televised games of the season. Stop whining.


----------



## DaBruins (Jul 30, 2003)

I like what Bill Simmons said. Expand to 6 fouls, but the 5th foul becomes a technical foul.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

I think it should stay 5 fouls. Everyone forgets your get a 6th in the NBA because the game is 8 minutes longer. 40/5 is one foul per 8 minutes. 48/6 is guess what? one foul per 8 minutes.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Horrrrrrible idea. Just stop calling cheap ones. The kids need to learn how to stay out of foul trouble too.


----------



## BlueBaron (May 11, 2003)

kamego said:


> This isn't his idea. Bill Walton suggested in 1982 after colleges went to the 3 ref system.



That explains a lot. Grateful Red probably thought this up after smoking some reefer.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

BlueBaron said:


> That explains a lot. Grateful Red probably thought this up after smoking some reefer.


The idea of not fouling out is used to put pressure on the system to change. It will never happen but if enough people ask for it, you may see a 6th foul added to make them happy but as I said earlier, thats not right.

The college game is what it is because of the rules already setup. It wouldn't be a game killer if guys got 6 fouls but the rule differances between college and NBA are what make the game what it is.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kamego said:


> I think it should stay 5 fouls. Everyone forgets your get a 6th in the NBA because the game is 8 minutes longer. 40/5 is one foul per 8 minutes. 48/6 is guess what? one foul per 8 minutes.


That is certainly true, but there is a subtle difference.

Example:

An important collge post player picks up his 2nd foul in the 14th minute of play (6 minutes left in the first half). Nearly all college coaches will sit the player down.

An important NBA post player picks up his 2nd foul in the 14th minute of play (10 minutes left in the 2nd quarter). The coach will most likely keep the player in the game. If that player picks up the 3rd foul, then the coach will sit him. 

In the college example, the player gets taken out of the game after the 2nd foul. If he were to stay in the game he may not pick up another foul in the half, and he would go into the second half with only 2 fouls, but we will never know if that would have been the case since the risk of him picking up his 3rd forces the coach to sit him out. In the NBA example, the player has the opportunity to stay on the court, at least until he picks up his 3rd foul. But the player may not pick up the 3rd foul, in which case his playing time will not be limited by foul trouble.

Like I said, this is a very subtle difference, but I think it's one reason foul trouble seems to be a more pervasive problem in the college game than in the NBA game.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

While the general rule is to sit a player with 2 fouls in the first half, many coaches ahve turned back into letting them play and risk a 3rd lately. Mainly the case at postions of lack of depth. This is what makes offensive and defensive switches an important part of the game. Don't want guys picking up fouls on D so coaches have to work. If we bump up the foul limit, it takes a lot of the strat out of it for coaches.


----------



## 4BiddenKnight (Jun 23, 2005)

kamego said:


> I think it should stay 5 fouls. Everyone forgets your get a 6th in the NBA because the game is 8 minutes longer. 40/5 is one foul per 8 minutes. 48/6 is guess what? one foul per 8 minutes.


I think this post should end this thread.

NCAA & NBA foul per 8 minutes.


----------



## HayesFan (Feb 16, 2006)

If you don't allow the rules of the game to change with the evolution of it then you hold the sport back. Was the 3 point line a bad idea? Was the shot clock a bad idea? Not at all.

When something becomes a strategy that is utilized to change how the game is played... ie the shot clock (slowing down the ball so badly that your score is 12-15)... or driving at an opponents center over and over again until its a slug fest and they have to call the foul and take him out of the game... then something needs to change.

All of the changes in the game, both NBA and NCAA, have benefitted the outside shooter and to some extent restrained the taller/stronger players inside. 

I think the idea of change is a good one, now do I think they should eliminate fouling out... not necessarily. But I do think its worthwhile to look at changing the system.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Nah, 5 fouls is correct. The fact that fouling out is rare shows that 5 is good. Fouls are meant to be a deterrent to dirty play.

If anything, the refs (both in the NBA and college) need to stop anticipating fouls. They should only call fouls when they are 100% sure they saw it occur.


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

4BiddenKnight said:


> I think this post should end this thread.
> 
> NCAA & NBA foul per 8 minutes.


You mean like I said 4 posts earlier 



Scuall said:


> His memory is definitely failing. IIRC, the Big East Conference experimented with the 6-foul rule a little more than 10 years ago. The result was a failure as the games became a hack fest. Completely slowed down the tempo with all of the extra fouls being committed.
> 
> With a 48-minute game, 6 fouls are OK. Not so in the 40-minute game of NCAA hoops.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

HayesFan said:


> If you don't allow the rules of the game to change with the evolution of it then you hold the sport back. Was the 3 point line a bad idea? Was the shot clock a bad idea? Not at all.
> 
> When something becomes a strategy that is utilized to change how the game is played... ie the shot clock (slowing down the ball so badly that your score is 12-15)... or driving at an opponents center over and over again until its a slug fest and they have to call the foul and take him out of the game... then something needs to change.


Well did teams score more points before or after the 3 point line was put in? I think the college game would be better without the line but thats just me.

The shot clock wasn't added in the college game until pretty recently. In the early 80s teams scored without running the clock down that bad. Look at the magical Nova team against Georgetown. They scored and still managed one period at the end of the first half were they managed to play keep away from GTown. A shot clock isn't needed if you play good defense.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

i think you should get an extra foul in overtime periods. other than that, just stop fouling so damn much.


----------



## kansasalumn (Jun 9, 2002)

I like whre the fould count is at, and the amount on where it is. no changes, but maybe a little less of these tack fouls, like trying to go for the ball, and hit his hand instead. Those type foulds should be allowed to play though.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

kansasalumn said:


> I like whre the fould count is at, and the amount on where it is. no changes, but maybe a little less of these tack fouls, like trying to go for the ball, and hit his hand instead. Those type foulds should be allowed to play though.


The one I see a lot is if a big man is getting backed down and his forearm is on the back of the other guy he gets called for a foul. I'm not exactly sure why this foul is ever called because it is so soft.


----------

