Just a few of the reasons:
1. How many times do players legitimately make a play for a steal and not touch the ball?
In the backcourt? I’d say not very often at all. There’s not a lot of reason to be guarding someone so closely that you commit a legitimate foul without touching the ball while in the backcourt. The point is you make that the rule when players haven’t crossed mid-court (when the 10 second count is happening). It’s not the same application on the offensive end.
What about if they are trying to draw a charge?
First off, how often are players trying to draw a charge from a guy that’s standing 50-90 feet away from his team’s basket? Secondly, they can still draw a charge. If it’s a legit charge, nothing changes. If it turns out to be a blocking foul, maybe that could be treated differently. But its very rare for either of those to be called in the backcourt.
An instant late trying to intercept a pass?
I’d say it could be tweaked from my original proposal to where the ball also has to be in possession of any player for it to apply. A pass is a situation where it’s not in possession by either team. But if you are holding the ball or dribbling it, you have possession.
Not touching the ball has nothing to do with whether a foul is committed or not. Making it a flagrant one if you don't touch the ball is insanity.
Nobody said it does. But the rules already state that a Flagrant 1 is unnecessary contact without making a play on the ball. That’s already on the books. What I’m suggesting simply provides guidance as to whether a play is reasonably being made on the ball or not. Everybody knows damn well that these end of game situations where guys are hacked as soon as they catch the inbounds pass are not legitimate plays on the ball (unless they find a way to touch the ball first, in which case they have a possible steal and it doesn’t apply). But its never called a Flagrant 1. So to me, if a rule is very clearly on the books but is being ignored by everyone including the referees, then it means the standards and criteria for applying the judgment are not robust enough. This addresses that side of it.
2. The plan would actually require more reviews. No one, I mean NO ONE wants more reviews.
Says who? The only need for a review would be if an official can’t make the determination in real time, when it’s typically not that difficult to see if they get to the ball or not. Could be decreed that it is not reviewable unless a coach issues a challenge.
3. Making free throws is just part of the game. Teams with a lead should be able to go to the line and hold their advantage.
That’s the thing though. They aren’t able to hold their advantage because they aren’t being allowed to take 3 pointers, or run clock. In today’s game where most everyone has 3-4 guys shooting 36-40% from 3 (if not more), its not much of an advantage at all. The real advantage isn’t the lead, it’s the lead AND the low amount of time left on the clock. You play well enough for 37-38 minutes to get to that point, you shouldn’t be penalized for it by not being allowed to reasonably protect the advantage you have built. Fact is, the team getting fouled can make 100% of the free throws, and still lose. And there’s nothing they can do. That’s not a good system. And it’s equally crappy that it allows teams up by 3 in the waning seconds to also foul to prevent a game tying shot. So this would potentially address that as well, because it gives the trailing team a reasonable chance of getting a makeable 3-point look before they get fouled.
If they miss free throws, then they deserve whatever outcome happens to them.
But what if they don’t, and something bad still happens because they can’t score the max amount of points available on any of their final possessions?
Rule changes that enable the team with the lead to just run out the clock without having to do anything to protect it rob the sport of a certain level of competitiveness.
It doesn’t let them run out the clock. It only gives them up to 10 “free” seconds (out of 30) for each possession, and along with that they get a reasonable chance at a makeable field goal attempt before a foul occurs. To me, that is a compromise. They can’t just hold the ball to the shot clock buzzer each time.
In regards to your competitiveness comments, a “foul” by very definition is a departure from fair play or sportsman-like behavior, which is why you can’t just keep doing it and stay in the game in the first place. It should never, ever be advantageous to commit a foul. The fact that it is in these situation is a straight up failure in the design of the rules for men’s college basketball. That’s a much bigger competitiveness problem to me.
I think the second flagrant 1 is already an ejection but maybe I'm wrong on that. Seems like I have seen it before but I can't remember when or what game.
Maybe so.
