Ken Pom has an interesting article in The Athletic (a pay site) on this topic, suggesting that the penalty is too harsh. The penalty for fouling on a 3-point attempt is harsh. Is it time for a rule change?

Pom's thesis has more to do with the disproportionate reward of three free throws for such fouls, given the chance of making such shots. He suggests a triple-bonus:

Quote:

---

I'd recommend the triple-bonus. You get the next shot only if you made the previous one. This would reduce the expected value of a foul to 1.77 points, or the equivalent of a 59 percent 3-point shooter.

---

My first reaction was that the remedy should be "well, don't foul," based on my frequent frustration watching defenders jump out and into a three point shooter--both at the college and pro levels. But thinking on it, if reducing the reward results in fewer of the ridiculous pump faking, jab stepping, attempt to draw contact then throw up fake circus shots we now see from so many guards (yes, I'm taking about you, James Hardin), then I am all for it. So reducing the reward for such fouls makes sense to me for multiple reasons.

Your thoughts?

MSaviolives said:

---

Ken Pom has an interesting article in The Athletic (a pay site) on this topic, suggesting that the penalty is too harsh. The penalty for fouling on a 3-point attempt is harsh. Is it time for a rule change?

Pom's thesis has more to do with the disproportionate reward of three free throws for such fouls, given the chance of making such shots. He suggests a triple-bonus:

Quote:

---

I'd recommend the triple-bonus. You get the next shot only if you made the previous one. This would reduce the expected value of a foul to 1.77 points, or the equivalent of a 59 percent 3-point shooter.

---

My first reaction was that the remedy should be "well, don't foul," based on my frequent frustration watching defenders jump out and into a three point shooter--both at the college and pro levels. But thinking on it, if reducing the reward results in fewer of the ridiculous pump faking, jab stepping, attempt to draw contact then throw up fake circus shots we now see from so many guards (yes, I'm taking about you, James Hardin), then I am all for it. So reducing the reward for such fouls makes sense to me for multiple reasons.

Your thoughts?

---

It's not the rule, its the refs.

I despise Harden's antics with the created foul. Other than that and his laziness on D, he'd be a great player IMHO. However, he's a pretty good FT shooter, so I don't think the recommended solution above would change his behavior. The officials have enough leeway to use their judgment, but they continue to enable Harden (and sometimes Curry for that matter, but he doesn't seem to do it as consistently). Whether it is individual refs or a group conspiracy - it is apparent that most of them like encouraging this behavior.

If you were to change the rule, I would propose that the shooter gets the first two no matter what, but needs to make the 2nd to get the 3rd. Otherwise, potentially a foul on a 3-point shot has less of a penalty than on a 2. This would, IMO, lead to way more fouling at the end of games.

I would simply not reward shooters from hunting for fouls

So obvious sometimes when a shooter goes out of their way to jump into a defender who has left their feet

Yes it's a judgment call, but so is many things in basketball

BeachedBear said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

Ken Pom has an interesting article in The Athletic (a pay site) on this topic, suggesting that the penalty is too harsh. The penalty for fouling on a 3-point attempt is harsh. Is it time for a rule change?

Pom's thesis has more to do with the disproportionate reward of three free throws for such fouls, given the chance of making such shots. He suggests a triple-bonus:

Quote:

---

I'd recommend the triple-bonus. You get the next shot only if you made the previous one. This would reduce the expected value of a foul to 1.77 points, or the equivalent of a 59 percent 3-point shooter.

---

My first reaction was that the remedy should be "well, don't foul," based on my frequent frustration watching defenders jump out and into a three point shooter--both at the college and pro levels. But thinking on it, if reducing the reward results in fewer of the ridiculous pump faking, jab stepping, attempt to draw contact then throw up fake circus shots we now see from so many guards (yes, I'm taking about you, James Hardin), then I am all for it. So reducing the reward for such fouls makes sense to me for multiple reasons.

Your thoughts?

---

It's not the rule, its the refs.

I despise Harden's antics with the created foul. Other than that and his laziness on D, he'd be a great player IMHO. However, he's a pretty good FT shooter, so I don't think the recommended solution above would change his behavior. The officials have enough leeway to use their judgment, but they continue to enable Harden (and sometimes Curry for that matter, but he doesn't seem to do it as consistently). Whether it is individual refs or a group conspiracy - it is apparent that most of them like encouraging this behavior.

---

Yes Curry does it too--he's just not as good at it as Harden.