Dicky V on fouling

[strummer8526]

So yesterday, apparently Vitale was on Mike and Mike in the Morning. I admittedly DID NOT see the segment. But this morning, they were discussing something Dick said yesterday, and I think I got the gyst of it:

He made the recommendation that the college basketball game GET RID of the 5 fouls rule and make it that any foul over 5 just results in the other team shooting 2 and getting the ball (like a T). His reasoning was that this is the ONLY sport where something as commonplace as a foul can take the stars out of games.

Two things came to mind:
(1) Does anyone here know if this conversation was prompted by a discussion of the Georgetown game? He had us in the Final Four, so I'm sure he was bummed, and I could definitely see Hibbert's fouling out as the reason for such a discussion/recommendation

(2) How about this system? (I personally would be pretty hesitant. It could slow the game to a crawl, but on the plus side, it could help keep big men in the games and aggressive.

[guru]

Yes, the conversation was prompted by the Hoyas game.

Didn't hear it either, but saw a recap of the segment yesterday. Here it is:

sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/24/dick-vitale-advocates-eliminating-fouling-out/

Not sure how I feel about his proposal - fouling out is part of the game, and players need to adjust to the way it is being called.

[DanMcQ]

The Big East had a 6 foul rule during the Mourning era IIRC. It was a consensus failure and was scrapped.

[GIGAFAN99]

Mar 25, 2008 7:53:20 GMT -5 guru said:

Yes, the conversation was prompted by the Hoyas game.

Didn't hear it either, but saw a recap of the segment yesterday. Here it is:

sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2008/03/24/dick-vitale-advocates-eliminating-fouling-out/

Not sure how I feel about his proposal - fouling out is part of the game, and players need to adjust to the way it is being called.

It is also the reason why officials have more power in basketball than any other sport. They can remove players from the game arbitrarily and permanently.

Imagine if three holds took an offensive lineman out of the game. How much could that be abused? Take this out of the toolbelt for NBA and NCAA officials and you'll probably see fewer fouls called. Would you see more aggressive play? Not sure. There is still a penalty for fouling and that's points or possessions. That should be enough.

This "it's part of the game" argument doesn't hold water. Three-pointers aren't part of the game (or at least they weren't) and they are now. Did it fundamentally change the way teams guard? Of course, but they got over it.

Also there's the "players have to adjust to it argument." No offense but it's tough to adjust to something inconsistent and subjective. When a team gets tentative because of fouls and loses everyone says "You can't change your gameplan and stop being aggressive because of the officials" if they don't change and they lose everyone says "You have to adjust to the officials." It's a catch-22.

[Madgesdiq]

Mar 25, 2008 8:01:00 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

The Big East had a 6 foul rule during the Mourning era IIRC. It was a consensus failure and was scrapped.

It was only a failure because the Big East was the only conference that went to six fouls, and then in the tournament, all the Big East Bigs had to play with the 5 foul rule and they all fouled out.

[KeysPlaceHoya]

The foul discussion came up last year, too, when everyone predicted the refs would deny the world a chance to see Oden go vs. Hibbert head to head by calling BS fouls on them, and of course that's what happened. The only good point I heard for keeping it at 5 fouls was that the college game is only 40 minutes, whereas the pros play 48.

The problem isn't fouls, it's the people who are calling them. Refs in college call fouls that shouldn't be called and they call them inconsistently and with bias. Obviously if someone gets chucked to the court while going up for a shot, the defender should be called for a foul. I believe the definition of a foul is "contact that gives an advantage" or something like that. There were egregious calls made against the Hoyas in the Davidson game: Roys first foul (brushing Lovedale's elbow) and Rivers doing the same thing to Curry on a 3...and, of course, Davidson NOT getting called for the same thing on Macklin's dunk and Wright's 3 attempt. The problem was 1) incidental, inconsequential contact getting called as fouls and 2) it not being called consistently against both teams. THAT's the problem in college basketball. the conferences and NCAA need to step up and have some sort of quality control over their referees. They really make the sport almost unwatchable at times, which is sad.

And I can't even begin to digest the offensive fouls called on the Hoyas...that's got to be an unprecedented number in an NCAA game. I'm advocate for the no charge line that the NBA has (this would destroy Duke's "defensive strategy" but so be it), but the Davidson game had the most absurd, ticky-tack fouls called on the Hoyas on the offensive end...and, again, it was called only one way...I mean, how many moving screens was Davidson setting to help get Curry free in the second half? Total BS. Now I'm angry again.

[RusskyHoya]

Mar 25, 2008 8:05:04 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

It is also the reason why officials have more power in basketball than any other sport. They can remove players from the game arbitrarily and permanently.

Well, there is this one other sport, I don't know if you've ever heard of it, called soccer or football or something. Seems to be pretty popular in the barbarian spaces outside our borders. They seem to have a similar thing going on with ejecting players for fouls, although at least there you get a nice colored card for your efforts ;D

Granted, fouling out happens far more than ejections in soccer, but it's also the case that yellow cards catch up to you over multiple games, so if you get one in two consecutive games, you're inelligible for the third one (in World Cup and Euro Champ. play, anyway). And that does happen much more than, say, the NBA's rule on amassing X number of technicals over a season.

[RDF]

The point should be to improve the officiating. Why we have to see 50-60 year old men trying to regulate games between 18-22 year olds--or in case of outlaw programs--21-30 year olds-- is absurd. They can't keep up--so when they (officials) get tired--they blow a whistle to get a breather. What is worse then these fossils doing the games? They do EVERY damn game. They need to be held to a standard higher then they are and they need to be graded during the season--by the leagues they work and then figure out who the best officials are--and have them rewarded. It's just awful how out of shape, old, and awful some of these guys are--no matter who is playing.

As for the "rule" that Vitale is proposing-it's absurd. You can't take the awful officiating and tough circumstances (Hibbert's game) and make a universal rule up because that would be exploited. Imagine teams knowing you can't lose a player to disqualification-now think of the type of fouls you could use strategically in a game--you could hammer people, you could spend an entire game beating up on players and know that it won't hurt your team. 2 FT's and the ball isn't as big of a reward if your team is beat to hell.

The solution isn't changing the rule to keep players in--it's changing how officials are enforcing/not enforcing the rules and holding them to a higher standard. What you see in today's game is officials calling games based on the talent differential and that is NOT THEIR JOB. They help the "little guy" and the team with less "athleticism" and call it differently--as was pointed out by Keys above--the Macklin/Wright no-calls compared to some of the bullcrap calls against Hoyas. In the old days--if you were 40-50 pts better that day--that is what happened--you didn't get to "hang around" due to phantom calls, refs looking for things that might help you or refs needing a breather because they are tired/out of shape. Officials do get caught up in emotion of a crowd as well--and the thing I'm pointing out about the officiating in Davidson games--it wasn't just the Hoya game--Gonzaga was better then them-twice had double digit leads and they evaporated due to some interesting calls--the double dribble call against Zags was the worst call of entire tournament that I've seen.

When you have a team that everyone has pegged as a "capable team", and they are playing in front of a friendly crowd--these officials get influenced. It's why people who complain about officiating in professional sports have no idea how much superior it is to the dolts/morons who call a college game and fall for the flopping, reward people for being less talented.

Saddest thing-on HoyaReport site, I mentioned at the half that Hoyas would have to overcome officiating since the Davidson offense would be infront of their bench and defense against Curry in 1st Half was holding down the "little darling" of tournament. He showed in First Half exactly why he's at Davidson--he couldn't get open against superior athletes, he didn't have strength--and if you watch--he got open due to push offs, and illegal screens. It's a credit to him he hit tough shots when game was tied/close late--but by then--Hoyas are in penalty-you can't get up in his face/chest, and he had advantage. That said--the cute kid still shot 8-21 which is awful percentage wise--but it's the shots he hit and WHEN he hit them I tip my hat to. My problem from hearing/reading about the officiating--would he had the chance to hit "tough shots" if the game was officiated more evenly? We'll never know.

[town05]

Well I think RDF pretty much put that one to rest...

[strummer8526]

Mar 25, 2008 10:37:51 GMT -5 RDF said:

The point should be to improve the officiating. Why we have to see 50-60 year old men trying to regulate games between 18-22 year olds--or in case of outlaw programs--21-30 year olds-- is absurd. They can't keep up--so when they (officials) get tired--they blow a whistle to get a breather. What is worse then these fossils doing the games? They do EVERY damn game. They need to be held to a standard higher then they are and they need to be graded during the season--by the leagues they work and then figure out who the best officials are--and have them rewarded. It's just awful how out of shape, old, and awful some of these guys are--no matter who is playing.

As for the "rule" that Vitale is proposing-it's absurd. You can't take the awful officiating and tough circumstances (Hibbert's game) and make a universal rule up because that would be exploited. Imagine teams knowing you can't lose a player to disqualification-now think of the type of fouls you could use strategically in a game--you could hammer people, you could spend an entire game beating up on players and know that it won't hurt your team. 2 FT's and the ball isn't as big of a reward if your team is beat to hell.

The solution isn't changing the rule to keep players in--it's changing how officials are enforcing/not enforcing the rules and holding them to a higher standard.

You already could beat someone up. Put in Jansen and have him pick up an intention foul. What's the difference?

[RDF]

Mar 25, 2008 10:46:35 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Mar 25, 2008 10:37:51 GMT -5 RDF said:

The point should be to improve the officiating. Why we have to see 50-60 year old men trying to regulate games between 18-22 year olds--or in case of outlaw programs--21-30 year olds-- is absurd. They can't keep up--so when they (officials) get tired--they blow a whistle to get a breather. What is worse then these fossils doing the games? They do EVERY damn game. They need to be held to a standard higher then they are and they need to be graded during the season--by the leagues they work and then figure out who the best officials are--and have them rewarded. It's just awful how out of shape, old, and awful some of these guys are--no matter who is playing.

As for the "rule" that Vitale is proposing-it's absurd. You can't take the awful officiating and tough circumstances (Hibbert's game) and make a universal rule up because that would be exploited. Imagine teams knowing you can't lose a player to disqualification-now think of the type of fouls you could use strategically in a game--you could hammer people, you could spend an entire game beating up on players and know that it won't hurt your team. 2 FT's and the ball isn't as big of a reward if your team is beat to hell.

The solution isn't changing the rule to keep players in--it's changing how officials are enforcing/not enforcing the rules and holding them to a higher standard.

You already could beat someone up. Put in Jansen and have him pick up an intention foul. What's the difference?

The difference is--if you do that--as John Chaney did--your player gets thrown out of a game, your team gets punished not just for that game--but rest of year and the kid/coach would get suspended. It was referred to as the "Goon" incident. Teams use guys like Jansen for fouling late--but not intentional/rough fouls.

If you let guys like Rivers, Crawford, Sapp beat up on Curry for 40 minutes and know they don't ever have to leave a game--they are going to get an advantage. You'd also see injuries across NCAA basketball rise up, fighting would increase, length of games would expand due to incessant fouling, and the focus would turn from basketball to survival of fittest. You'd foul so much that officials eventually would let some stuff go-it's what started to kill the NBA in '90's with the Knicks/Heat style of GARBAGE and that stuff was unwatchable.

Why is it so difficult to hold officials to standards? Nobody is saying that Roy Hibbert didn't commit a foul--the first call on him and last call on him--they were fouls. Clearly. The 2nd foul on him was pathetic--it was an awful call. Problem is--Macklin and Wright get hacked and nothing is called? Why? If Curry missed instead of Wright, you think he gets that call? I do. If some Davidson post player dunked and Macklin hits him across both arms--is that called? I think so. Curry used his off arm to push off on Sapp in First Half and although he missed a shot--that is a FOUL. It was gaining an advantage but he's not as talented/tough as a Hoya--so he didn't get call. He also looks like a 16 year old girl-only not hot (shout out to Chaz Michael Michaels) and that helps him while Hoyas are physically superior looking from Big Bad Big East. That is what influenced the calls and it's pathetic.

[Deleted]

I think that point about refereeing "standards" is one of the reasons why the foul DQ rule doesn't make much sense.

No one wants to see bad calls, but I don't think most fans/players/coaches have a problem with either a tightly or loosely called game from the ref (as long as it's consistent). Plus -- when you have situations like the Villanova game -- where it's almost expected that a ref should "swallow his whistle" -- or end-of-game "intentional unintentional" fouls -- you will never be able to standardize or "fix" the refs. There will always be the set of unwritten rules. Some refs will be good or bad, but all refs will be different (and human).

Given that -- why should we have a rule that standardizes when a player gets disqualified?
Why should players have to adjust to the refs once they step on the court?

I understand refs affect players in all other sports, and the players adjust -- they just don't have to worry about being DQ'd from the game.

[GIGAFAN99]

Mar 25, 2008 11:38:42 GMT -5 @nychoya94 said:

I think that point about refereeing "standards" is one of the reasons why the foul DQ rule doesn't make much sense.

No one wants to see bad calls, but I don't think most fans/players/coaches have a problem with either a tightly or loosely called game from the ref (as long as it's consistent). Plus -- when you have situations like the Villanova game -- where it's almost expected that a ref should "swallow his whistle" -- or end-of-game "intentional unintentional" fouls -- you will never be able to standardize or "fix" the refs. There will always be the set of unwritten rules. Some refs will be good or bad, but all refs will be different (and human).

Given that -- why should we have a rule that standardizes when a player gets disqualified?
Why should players have to adjust to the refs once they step on the court?

I understand refs affect players in all other sports, and the players adjust -- they just don't have to worry about being DQ'd from the game.

And you waste one of those 5 "figuring out" how the game is called.

I don't buy that there will be a "hack an everyone" defense employed with unlimited individual fouls. What coach wants to be in the bonus with 16 minutes to go? It makes no sense.

Why doesn't Rivers foul out every game? He's only playing 15 minutes and it's enough to not be a "goon" but he can just kill people while he's in. Same with Wright or Macklin, why won't they just knee people in the head accidentally? I'd say because as a strategy, it's awful for your team to foul constantly.

[hoyaboy1]

Yes, even sending a 50% shooter to the line in a double bonus situation is bad strategy. If they got the ball back too . . .

[RDF]

The object of the sport is to show athleticism, skill, and talent on court and showcase it. That doesn't just mean on offense--defensive basketball can show just as much talent/athleticism and it shouldn't be a big deal to have 5 fouls in 40 minutes of basketball if officials are held to a standard where they enforce the rules--for BOTH TEAMS--no matter where the game is played, who is playing, etc...and that is their job.

The problem with American sports in regards to officiating--we accept the garbage/excuses of "when you have X crew--they call this or don't call this"--the idea is these guys interpret things or enforce certain things--which is NOT their job. Why change rules in the sport to appease the problem? The problem is BAD OFFICIATING--not players who foul. It's the fact the kids never have anything consistently called and have to "adjust" to how the game is called. That should NEVER be the case--the fact is you don't have millions of dollars pumped into the NCAA for officiating--it's to see teams play basketball. Nobody tunes into watch 3 editeds call fouls against a guy because he's physically superior to the undermanned opponent. Life isn't meant to be equal--some guys can do things better then you and why does it seem only in sports that people in the last 20-25 years seem obsessed with seeing superior athletes punished to make the game more "Even". That isn't right, it's a problem so deeply entrenched at this time-it needs to be examined and addressed.

Punish the editeds calling the game and make them call the game evenly for both teams--not by their own "style". Officials shouldn't be noticed--they should be there to enforce rules and stay out of the way--as the best officials do--you shouldn't notice them--but not only do we notice them--we basically can decide the rhythm of a game, what calls will be made prior to the start just by seeing who is officiating--and to me that is far more of a problem in need of correction then giving players no disqualification.

[EasyEd]

I don't think we'll ever see officials doing their jobs perfectly and evenly. It won't happen and it's senseless to pretend it will. I think Dickie V's suggestion has some merit and it might be a good thing to try it out in some exhibition or early season games. Rather than pretending we know what will happen, let's find out in real life.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Mar 25, 2008 12:57:27 GMT -5 RDF said:

The object of the sport is to show athleticism, skill, and talent on court and showcase it. That doesn't just mean on offense--defensive basketball can show just as much talent/athleticism and it shouldn't be a big deal to have 5 fouls in 40 minutes of basketball if officials are held to a standard where they enforce the rules--for BOTH TEAMS--no matter where the game is played, who is playing, etc...and that is their job.

The problem with American sports in regards to officiating--we accept the garbage/excuses of "when you have X crew--they call this or don't call this"--the idea is these guys interpret things or enforce certain things--which is NOT their job. Why change rules in the sport to appease the problem? The problem is BAD OFFICIATING--not players who foul. It's the fact the kids never have anything consistently called and have to "adjust" to how the game is called. That should NEVER be the case--the fact is you don't have millions of dollars pumped into the NCAA for officiating--it's to see teams play basketball. Nobody tunes into watch 3 editeds call fouls against a guy because he's physically superior to the undermanned opponent. Life isn't meant to be equal--some guys can do things better then you and why does it seem only in sports that people in the last 20-25 years seem obsessed with seeing superior athletes punished to make the game more "Even". That isn't right, it's a problem so deeply entrenched at this time-it needs to be examined and addressed.

Punish the editeds calling the game and make them call the game evenly for both teams--not by their own "style". Officials shouldn't be noticed--they should be there to enforce rules and stay out of the way--as the best officials do--you shouldn't notice them--but not only do we notice them--we basically can decide the rhythm of a game, what calls will be made prior to the start just by seeing who is officiating--and to me that is far more of a problem in need of correction then giving players no disqualification.

Totally agree with this post. The biggest issue I've had with offiating for years is that it always seems like the smaller, shorter, less athletic players/teams get graded on a curve to make the game more interesting/competitive. That is NOT why teams recruit top talent, why guys spend hundreds of hours improving their bodies and honing their skills, or why contributors and tax payers spend millions to build quality programs.

The NCAA should do a comprehensive review of officiating and provide guidance and accountability to its officials to standardize what calls are made, and how and in what situations they're made. If nothing else, they should take the pressure of having to make interpretations off of the officials who get berated by fans and grilled by coaches all game long, provide consistency and clarity to the players, and give some respite to the growing "vox populi" of fans frustrated with the status quo.

[Deleted]

Everyone hates refs. Catch Joe Fan from any team on the wrong end of a tough call and you'll get the same commentary.

For the "why do we play/why do we recruit"... the only objective is winning. Take a fair basketball referee -- the only we he can affect the outcome of a game one way or the other is by calling that foul to DQ a guy (or send him to the bench w/ foul trouble). Players can't win or lose a game when they're not allowed to play.

[joey0403p]

You could never do the no DQ rule. Some coach would come along and try the hack a shaq game plan on a memphis or something. they would win and everyone would complain it was a sham.

You should be able to:
get some younger refs in there (i don't think refs are calling fouls because they need a break - but some are pretty old and can't keep up as well)
limit the number of games a ref can work (its the same bunch of guys reffing all the college b ball games in a year) or at least limit the number of games in a row or of a certain team.
the leagues / ncaa almost always just back up the refs and say that everything is fine. It would help if there was an independant body that observed and critiqued the ref's performance. AND published their findings. Maybe not specifics about each person, but at least something that says fouls were adequate in this game, and fouls were incorrect in that game.

This year was terrible by most standards...

UCLA has gotten some gifts in late game stuff, we benefited from some calls that were questionable, the UNC game where they had like 25 free throws to the other teams 1 or 2. I think if there was a governing body that came out and said... here was the finding on this game. it would shut a lot of people up. For example:

The UCLA game when the ball went over the backboard...they could say here is what the rule is, we reviewed the tape and determined it was too close to call. Given that the ref was in position he made a judgement call which we stand by.

The Nova game: the rule book states x, y, z. By the rule book this was a fould. That said we encourage the refs to have a feel for the game and calling a fould with .1 of a tied game 70 ft away is not something we encourage. However, because the player was pushed out of bounds the wistle had to blow and the correct call was made.

The Davidson game: 47 (45 not intentional) fouls was too many to call in this game. Anythign close to 1 foul a min is too many unless there are numerous intentional fouls or hacking going on.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Disagree, nychoya. I actually love officials and the consistency and standards they can and do bring to games -- especially when you have a game that would get out of control or dangerous otherwise. It's when they go too far/make the game about them that I take issue. It seems to me, based on observation, that refs increasingly make inconsistent calls or calls based on some subjective bias that players are forced to figure out each time they take the floor. THAT'S the unfair part, and it's unfair for all participants, whether on the wrong end or the right end of a particular call.