As a lead-in to the point of this article, check the below Video out:

I’m showing you this for a couple reasons. One, poor kid. Two, it’s a lead-in to the point I want to make. Assume first the player who heaved the ball in the video was fouled. If his full court three-point hail mary were answered, he’d receive one foul shot for a possible four point play. Let’s call this the “and one” scenario. If he missed, he would have three foul shots . Taking the latter, assume further that he was fouled again after the first foul but before he actually shot the ball. How many foul shots does he get? Again, three. The second foul is not taken into account. How many should he get? I think four.

It’s difficult to see the logic in this context since we have a full court heave, so let’s consider a more typical example. Oftentimes a player driving to the hoop is fouled just as he picks up his dribble, glides in temporarily unmolested for a layup, but gets fouled again, thereby preventing the bucket. Under the current rules, he’d only get two fouls shots, yet in the “and one” scenario, he’d have a chance for three points. In other words, defending players have free license (in fact they have an incentive) to foul again without punishment to prevent the “and one” scenario.

So here’s my proposition. If a player is fouled after an initial shooting foul, he should receive the number of foul shots equal to the total possible points in an “and one” scenario. In other words, three foul shots for a two point shot, and four foul shots for a three point shot. Not only do I think that’s more fair, but it would also protect players who might otherwise be defenseless after the initial foul (though it wouldn’t have protected the poor kid in the video).

What do you think?

 Loading ...