Last night, the Thunder showed the downside of a poorly executed “foul up three.” Leading 117–114 with 13.2 seconds remaining, Alex Caruso fouled Nikola Jokić immediately after the ball was inbounded, accepting two Nuggets free throws in exchange for eliminating any possibility Denver could hit a three and tie the game. This cycle repeated: Jokić made the free throws, the Thunder scored at the other end, the Thunder fouled Aaron Gordon, Gordon made the free throws. Had the Thunder scored at the other end again, the cycle would have continued until the clock hit zero. Instead, the Thunder…didn’t score at the other end. Leading 119–118 with 9.1 seconds on the clock, Chet Holmgren missed both his free throw attempts. The Nuggets secured the rebound, went the length of the floor, and hit a three with the clock showing 2.8. Nuggets 121, Thunder 119. Final score.
At a certain point in the final seconds of a game, fouling with a three-point lead maximizes the leading team’s chance of winning. It is far more likely that their opponent will make a three than it is that their opponent will make one free throw, successfully rebound an intentional miss on the next, then score. There are a lot of factors at play—comparative rebounding strength, three-point percentages, free throw percentages, turnover likelihood on inbounds passes—so the exact time at which fouling becomes the winning strategy varies. But at some point, it’s a winning strategy, and last night, I think most agree the Thunder weren’t at that point. They needed to wait a few seconds longer. This, of course, is easy to say in hindsight.
Even when it is a winning strategy, fouling up three stinks. The real problem with fouling up three is not that it opens the door to a loss. (Remember, folks: Teams have a 50% chance of losing in overtime.) The real problem with fouling up three is the near-elimination of game-tying three-pointers in the closing seconds, one of the most thrilling plays in basketball.
Because there are roughly five times more college basketball games than NBA games in a given season, and because college basketball is more chaotic and less strategically advanced, the “foul up three” debate is more present in college basketball than it is in the pros. Those of you who watch a lot of college hoops have seen plenty of teams lose after fouling up three, and plenty more who would have won had they fouled up three, and plenty more who either did or didn’t foul up three and won the game either way. I’m guessing many of you, like me, found some excitement when you first noticed teams executing the strategy. Within recent memory, there was an era where it never happened. It’s fun to see new strategies emerge in old games. By now, though, it’s gotten tedious. The Thunder’s plan last night was to go through that cycle six or seven different times. Six or seven different fouls by each team. Roughly 25 free throw attempts. All of the accompanying breaks in the action. Endings like that are the basketball equivalent of trench warfare.
Fouling up three stinks, not because it’s usually a bad strategy but because it makes basketball less fun. It’s the basketball equivalent of baseball’s shift, and within a few years, exhaustion with it will be widespread. The solution isn’t the Elam Ending. The solution isn’t to try to carve out a specific definition of foul to penalize extra, like what the NBA did with the take foul. The solution has existed for decades in various basketball rulebooks: It’s to penalize all intentional fouls. If a team fouls intentionally, give the opponent one or two shots and give the opponent the ball.
From what I can tell, there are three main counterarguments to revitalizing the intentional foul rule:
- First, there’s concern that a rule change could make the final minutes of basketball games boring, encouraging stalling and eliminating comebacks.
- Second, there’s concern that a rule change could make basketball more violent. Teams would still try to foul, but they’d have to do it while primarily trying to steal the basketball. Tell Jusuf Nurkić he has to get the ball from Zach Edey, and you might not like the way he goes about the task.
- Third, there’s concern that a rule change would leave too many judgment calls on the refs’ shoulders. We might see inconsistent enforcement.
The first concern doesn’t have much basis. It would be more exciting to see the trailing team pursue the basketball than to see everyone do the foul dance for the final minute. It’s also unclear if there’d be fewer comebacks. There’s a reason physical play works, and that reason is turnovers.
The second concern is valid, but there are plenty of enforcement mechanisms preventing excessively violent play. Refs are not afraid to call flagrant fouls at any level of the game.
The third concern is valid. This is probably how basketball got to the place it’s at. Faced with judgment calls, it’s easy and convenient for refs to condone gentle intentional fouls. A rule is only as strong as its enforcement. That said, the NCAA successfully got refs to penalize flops for a while. The NCAA instituted the hook-and-hold rule. The world didn’t end.
College basketball would benefit more from a reinstated intentional foul rule than the NBA would. In the NBA, ball-handlers are too strong to reasonably expect teams to force turnovers in the closing minute. But the NBA would benefit too: NBA players are too good at shooting free throws to expect late-game intentional fouling to work in its present form.
Both college basketball and the NBA are struggling with pace of play issues and the lengths of games. Fouling up three isn’t going away anytime soon. There’s a stone out there which kills all of these birds. Take it from a baseball fan: You’d rather kill the birds too early than too late.
Bring back the intentional foul rule.
**
