Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
PROVO -- New rules for an old, but constantly evolving game of basketball. The players, schemes, coaching are changing, why not adjust some rules as well?
Rule #1:
So I get totally excited to watch Noah Hartsock and Brandon Davies do their thing each game only to be disappointed when one, or both, inevitably pick up their second foul just minutes into the contest. Upon hearing the whistle, Nate Austin's Pavlovian response is to get up and check himself into the game, no need for Dave Rose to even move. The rule is if you have two fouls, you sit the rest of the half.
And the fouls are always on the big men. It's a completely different game in the paint. Bodies are bigger and stronger than they have ever been. Play in the paint is more like football than basketball nowadays, except basketball players don't wear pads. So while the guards prance around the three-point line like prima ballerinas, the real men are fighting in the trenches for even the smallest advantage.
Add the fact that officials are most whistle happy during the first few minutes of a game and you have a recipe for disaster for big men. The zebras want to establish their authority early. Trouble is, what one official considers a foul, another does not. Unfortunately, for big men, they don't learn how a game is going to be called until it is often too late.
So how about throwing the big men a bone? Here's what I propose. New rule: six fouls. Simple enough, just give everybody an extra foul. For the guards it doesn't matter anyway because they're too worried about breaking a nail to play physical. But for big men, it can mean playing 20 minutes in the first half instead of 2. Alternatively, keep the number of fouls at five, but give coaches the option to keep a player in the game after committing five fouls. If a coach chooses to keep that player in the game, each subsequent foul by that player would be two free throws and possession. That way a player can stay in the game but there would be consequences.
Either way, I just want to keep my big men in the game. Is that too much to ask?
Rule #2:
I'm also frustrated when two big men are battling for position down low and a ref calls an arbitrary foul on one of them to punish the two for being too physical. Of course 30 seconds later, the ref will then call a foul on the other big man for the same offense. Enough of this silliness. Here's my new rule: A foul may be called on a big man battling another big man for position in the paint only under the following circumstances:
- There is a punch thrown or
- blood is drawn.
Except for the above, no fouls may be called in the paint on a non-shot, period. Darwinism at its finest. Only the strong survive. Rule #3:
Finally (now you're not gonna like this one at first but stick with me), referees must wait three full seconds before calling a foul. Of course this would be frustrating at first, but in the end it would be a huge improvement. Why make officials make a split second decision when a moment's reflection may result in better judgment. My clients don't expect me to make an immediate decision when confronted with a legal question. In fact, they expect me to take a reasoned, well-considered approach.
Why do we make referees contestants in the Family Feud lightning round? Let them have a moment to get the answer right rather than blurt out something embarrassing to themselves and potential harmful to your favorite team. Take a blocked shot for instance. Hartsock comes flying in from nowhere to reject an opponent's dunk attempt. It is perfectly clean, but alas, that shrill piercing whistle penetrates the roar of the crowd.
You see, referees often instinctively blow the whistle on what in their mind is likely a foul or in most cases would be a foul, rather than whether, in that particular instance, it was indeed a foul. If a referee could take just a moment to really determine in his or her mind if there actually was a foul committed on the play, a better call would be made.
Oh and by the way, new rule for soccer: No offsides. You're welcome.
