- Thread starter
- #1
MHSL82
Well-Known Member
This is NOT my idea, but I wanted to know where people stand on this.
Bill Simmons (?) and Nick Wright proposed that head coaches, outside of the final two minutes, should have the choice to decline foul shots on fouls away from the ball. (Instead take the ball out.) This is like how NFL coaches can decline penalties.
1. Excluding final two minutes: keeps the normal comeback strategy intact.
2. Only affects away from the ball fouls: this prevents too much referee judgment calls on legitimate defensive fouls (as opposed to potentially legitimate strategical fouls). It still takes the bad shooter out of handling the ball, too (HC isn't protected from hacks here).
Why would this work?
1. Opposing coaches would rarely agree with each other and thus, the hacking strategy wouldn't be used as often if the HC on offense doesn't allow it. Harder to use that strategy.
2. Most times, teams would shoot the free throws because they were legitimate fouls on good FT shooters. So no negative effect on real fouls.
3. Winning team gets to burn some clock on a new play, instead of free throws being missed with no time run off.
4. If strategical to get one free-throw made from two attempts vs. rolling the dice with possession, HC would choose the FTs.
5. More entertaining, as fewer free-throws and when teams don't score on re-possession, coach's strategy is evaluated.
6. Works because the away from the ball and under two minute exclusion limits negatitive affect.
Bill Simmons (?) and Nick Wright proposed that head coaches, outside of the final two minutes, should have the choice to decline foul shots on fouls away from the ball. (Instead take the ball out.) This is like how NFL coaches can decline penalties.
1. Excluding final two minutes: keeps the normal comeback strategy intact.
2. Only affects away from the ball fouls: this prevents too much referee judgment calls on legitimate defensive fouls (as opposed to potentially legitimate strategical fouls). It still takes the bad shooter out of handling the ball, too (HC isn't protected from hacks here).
Why would this work?
1. Opposing coaches would rarely agree with each other and thus, the hacking strategy wouldn't be used as often if the HC on offense doesn't allow it. Harder to use that strategy.
2. Most times, teams would shoot the free throws because they were legitimate fouls on good FT shooters. So no negative effect on real fouls.
3. Winning team gets to burn some clock on a new play, instead of free throws being missed with no time run off.
4. If strategical to get one free-throw made from two attempts vs. rolling the dice with possession, HC would choose the FTs.
5. More entertaining, as fewer free-throws and when teams don't score on re-possession, coach's strategy is evaluated.
6. Works because the away from the ball and under two minute exclusion limits negatitive affect.