Posted on 02/06/2014 6:35:17 AM PST by BenLurkin
“When I got my sixth foul, I was just like, ‘Oh, dang!’ Then I got to come back in, so I thought it was something special. I didn’t know what was going on.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
What are they going to do? Wag their fingers?
If they commit another foul, does the ref hold his breath in anger?
Try READING the article FIRST.
NBA rules are that the player can stay in the game and if he commits more fouls a technical is assessed on each.
At any other level, they are forced to play short handed or forfeit. I wonder why the NBA decided to have different rules for this.
Cleveland should've pulled their team off the court if the refs let an ineligible player stay in the game. A smarter option would be to have to play a manager, ball boy or anyone else or complete the game with four players. It's not right to let a team that's mostly fouled out to still have players left at the end of the game....think of the precedent.
grrrr....what's the point of having fouling out in the rule book if too many people fouling out means they can't foul out anymore? Isn't anyone in charge of common sense anymore?
I guess the Refs had a pen and a telephone.
As a side note, this is why I quit watching Basketball years ago. The Refs are all on the take, so now Professional Basketball is on the same par as Professional Wrestling.
If the team in Hoosiers can play with four guys than so can the Lakers.
Fouled out isn’t really fouled out. NBA fouls are all about layers, when you commit 6 you enter a land of extra punishment that means your team should sit you, hence the “out” part. But there’s nothing that say you can’t play, only that the team would be better served if you didn’t.
“Cleveland should’ve pulled their team off the court if the refs let an ineligible player stay in the game. A smarter option would be to have to play a manager, ball boy or anyone else or complete the game with four players. It’s not right to let a team that’s mostly fouled out to still have players left at the end of the game....think of the precedent.
grrrr....what’s the point of having fouling out in the rule book if too many people fouling out means they can’t foul out anymore? Isn’t anyone in charge of common sense anymore?”
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE FIRST?
Obviously NOT.
There were NO RULES BROKEN.
On this website we ACTUALLY are SUPPOSED to be the SMART ONES, we are not the liberals!!!
(or not).
Okay, then why does the rule exist? I still stand by the statement that “no one’s in charge of common sense anymore”, which is even more true with a rule like that. It rewards breaking the rules.
It exists because the NBA RULES COMMITTEE wrote it into the rule book. Six fouls for a player was established in the 1947-48 season!!
http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html
From the ESPN recap:
D’Antoni was informed by the officials that he could leave Sacre on the floor and any additional foul on the center would also result in a technical.
“I didn’t know about that rule, but it’s a nice rule,” D’Antoni said with a chuckle.
The REFS told the coach the rule.
The reason this is such a surprise is because NBA teams usually dress 12 players and it just doesn’t come up as a possibility.
AGAIN, there were NO rules broken
NBA Rule Book 2013-14
http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/Official-NBA-Rule-Book.pdf
RULE NO. 3—PLAYERS, SUBSTITUTES AND COACHES
In Section 1 this is covered.
Any questions?
How does it reward breaking the rules?
A guy fouls out and stays in the game.
He commits a loose ball foul going for an offensive rebound while the team is over the limit for the quarter.
The guy he fouls shoots two for the foul, a third for the technical and the team gets the ball back on offense to try for a 5 or 6 point play.
Does that sound like a reward to you?
They should’ve pulled the Cavs off anyway after that show of incompetence.
I remember a UNC/Clemson game (1998 or so) where Clemson committed so many fouls that they were forced to play the last few minutes of the game with four men on the court.
The game was in Chapel Hill, so it was a foregone conclusion that Clemson would lose, anyway. ;)
That being said, I had no idea that the NBA let a player with six fouls remain in the game at risk of a technical. I actually prefer that rule to the college version, as it truly penalizes the team that commits the foul and discourages the “Hack-a-Shaq” strategy.
How about a possible soccer version - you can keep a player that gets a red card on the field, but any foul he commits results in a penalty kick for the other team.....
(or not).
Just what the soccer world needs, another reason to flop . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.