Author Topic: Possibility of reducing freethrow shots to only 1 shot to decrease game duration  (Read 11388 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
They don't need to get rid of a referee.

The professional game already is fast enough this day & age to necessitate the third referee.  As much as people constantly complain about refereeing on this board, it'd be ten times worse if they went back to two referees.  The number of missed calls would jump as would the dirty antics.

Both Bill Russell and Tommy Heinson told me in person on separate occasions, that the way to fix today's NBA officiating is to get rid of the third referee. I asked them each this question separately, and they came up with the same answer, so there must be something to it.

Did they elaborate why they need to eliminate the third referee? Or simply say get rid of them and that was it?


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline hpantazo

  • Kevin McHale
  • ************************
  • Posts: 24883
  • Tommy Points: 2700
They don't need to get rid of a referee.

The professional game already is fast enough this day & age to necessitate the third referee.  As much as people constantly complain about refereeing on this board, it'd be ten times worse if they went back to two referees.  The number of missed calls would jump as would the dirty antics.

Both Bill Russell and Tommy Heinson told me in person on separate occasions, that the way to fix today's NBA officiating is to get rid of the third referee. I asked them each this question separately, and they came up with the same answer, so there must be something to it.

Did they elaborate why they need to eliminate the third referee? Or simply say get rid of them and that was it?

They didn't elaborate much, they just both said that the officiating was not a problem in the old days, the issues began when they added the third referee. They were both surprisingly adamant about that. I asked them what they think about the officiating today in the NBA, and I was surprised by the answer, and even more surprised that Bill Russell later on gave the same answer that Heinson gave me months earlier.

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
If there was any way to implement it with any sliver of feasibility, I'd say that only the ref closest to the action could call the foul (which is really the impetus behind culling the number of referees back down to two). Nothing's lamer to me than the ref who can't see what's going on calling the foul when the one that's nearby doesn't whistle anything.

-the explanation during the playoffs(Clippers game) from one of their head officials why the ref standing right in front of the play who missed a call was all I needed to hear. "he didn't miss the call it wasn't his responsibility to make this call, it was this guys responsibility(ref on the other side of the court, who couldn't see anything) to make that call.

so going by this explanation. the reason this problem exists that I understood from what the head official said is that at any time, depending on what a ref's responsibility is he could miss calls at any given time by simply not being in the right spot at the right time. or maybe just guessing when they make some calls because they're out of position and can't actually see a foul or non-foul occur.

so wouldn't a simple solution be to have the refs just call what they see is in front of them? instead of assigning responsibilities that put them in no position to make the right call?

it just seems like things are made complicated for no reason. and being that they are the only full time officials in all of pro sports they should be a lot better instead they are the worst of all the sports. And the reason why I will never doubt what Donahe(or whatever his name was) claimed.

the system in place is ridiculous for no reason.   

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
it just seems like things are made complicated for no reason. and being that they are the only full time officials in all of pro sports they should be a lot better instead they are the worst of all the sports. And the reason why I will never doubt what Donahe(or whatever his name was) claimed.

the system in place is ridiculous for no reason.   

Not being able to think of a reason isn't the same thing as there being no reason.

Offline 86MaxwellSmart

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3821
  • Tommy Points: 378
They don't need to get rid of a referee.

The professional game already is fast enough this day & age to necessitate the third referee.  As much as people constantly complain about refereeing on this board, it'd be ten times worse if they went back to two referees.  The number of missed calls would jump as would the dirty antics.

Both Bill Russell and Tommy Heinson told me in person on separate occasions, that the way to fix today's NBA officiating is to get rid of the third referee. I asked them each this question separately, and they came up with the same answer, so there must be something to it.

Yes but Tommy Heinsohn's definition of "Get Rid of" probably differs from Bill Russell's.
Larry Bird was Greater than you think.

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
If there was any way to implement it with any sliver of feasibility, I'd say that only the ref closest to the action could call the foul (which is really the impetus behind culling the number of referees back down to two). Nothing's lamer to me than the ref who can't see what's going on calling the foul when the one that's nearby doesn't whistle anything.
Yes, but that's just one of many different types of mistakes that refs make.  It makes perfect sense that the ref with the better angle sometimes can see the foul being committed better than a different, closer ref.  It just has to be implemented properly.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17837
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
i agree with many of ideas above for tightening up nba games. they would be more watchable.

but i also like the idea of a single foul shot worth 2-3 points. foul shots are not that entertaining for me and slow the game down as teams take time outs, substitutions, etc.

as for most of the objections here to the proposed change, i think this way. if the nba had had the 2-3 point foul shot a rule in place since its inception, and NOW tried to implement a "one point per shot with multiple shots" rule, i would imagine that very similar arguments would appear to protest that change.

i think the game would be the better for this change.

I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
They don't need to get rid of a referee.

The professional game already is fast enough this day & age to necessitate the third referee.  As much as people constantly complain about refereeing on this board, it'd be ten times worse if they went back to two referees.  The number of missed calls would jump as would the dirty antics.

Both Bill Russell and Tommy Heinson told me in person on separate occasions, that the way to fix today's NBA officiating is to get rid of the third referee. I asked them each this question separately, and they came up with the same answer, so there must be something to it.

Did you ask them why, or were you too googly-eye star struck to ask? lol

Offline obnoxiousmime

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2421
  • Tommy Points: 258
It really irks me when leagues claim to want to speed up play but will never consider the most obvious answer - shorter and less commercial breaks. How many times in the NFL do they come back from a commercial break and have a kickoff, then go right back to another break? It's so g------ aggravating. Why do NBA coaches need so many timeouts? Just let the team have to play through an opponent's hot streak, or figure out the play on the fly. Wouldn't that be just as or more exciting?

If they want to modify or lessen free throw time, how about removing FTs altogether from the end of games? The intentional fouling at the end of games just to get the ball back takes the most exciting portion of the game and turns it into a free throw-making contest. Oh yeah, the reason they'll never do that is because they know audiences only tune in at the end of the contest anyway so that's the premium ad time. They'll stuff as many time outs and stoppages in play as possible at the end.

I think American sports leagues can take a cue from soccer and realize that constant stoppages are not necessary and degrade the product. I know it's a pipe dream just like less games during the regular season but it still has to be said.

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
It really irks me when leagues claim to want to speed up play but will never consider the most obvious answer - shorter and less commercial breaks.

Good point. We should go back to tape delay.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
Never gonna happen...

ESPN was saying the NBA was thinking of a 4 point play.

Umm... so where is it?
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7567
  • Tommy Points: 1962
They don't need to get rid of a referee.

The professional game already is fast enough this day & age to necessitate the third referee.  As much as people constantly complain about refereeing on this board, it'd be ten times worse if they went back to two referees.  The number of missed calls would jump as would the dirty antics.

Both Bill Russell and Tommy Heinson told me in person on separate occasions, that the way to fix today's NBA officiating is to get rid of the third referee. I asked them each this question separately, and they came up with the same answer, so there must be something to it.

Yes but Tommy Heinsohn's definition of "Get Rid of" probably differs from Bill Russell's.

Hahahahaha.  That's one of the funniest things I've ever read on Celticsblog.
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9672
  • Tommy Points: 325
Getting back to the initial idea presented in this post, I like the idea of a single 2-point free throw, because I've always thought it unfair to make a guy hit two shots to get the same number of points as the one regular shot would've gotten him had he made it. This is especially true in the case of easy shots such as layups; as a player, I'd be thinking, "Wait, I just had a chance at an easy shot that would've gotten me 2 points, but now I have to hit two shots—from 15 feet away—to get those same 2 points?!"

Having one 2-point foul shot might also cut down on the hack-a-Shaq stuff, too.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Offline JBcat

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3642
  • Tommy Points: 512
I'm curious what other people think I mentioned earlier in this thread about limiting teams to 1 timeout in the last 2 minutes of each half?  I think that is where the game really slows down in close battles.  A more natural flow at this point in games relying on less coaching and more on players BBIQ could be more exciting.  In all honestly you might be able to cut off 5 to 10 minutes with that simple rule, and I would welcome that change.

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
I've take some hard fouls were there was still some pain and discomfort in playing out the rest of a game.  It certainly took more than one shot for me to get use to/ compensate for the discomfort so I like the system now were you get a few shots. Allows you more time to recover.