Intentional foul rule change options

[Crow]

I haven't followed this debate closely but there should be some compromise options available. Let the team take the ball out again with a full shot clock instead of shooting if they want if fouled away from ball or with the ball after 2? or 2-4? occurrences respectively (with the current rule still applying to the ones before the trigger number)? Technical foul shot by anyone of team's choice and the ball back after x many intentionals above the trigger amount? Would some system like that be acceptable? Keeps it part of game but probably not as excessive a part. What other options would you propose? Tougher standards before last part of 4th quarter?

[sndesai1]

once in the penalty, any foul could be 1 pt + 1 shot (on a 3 pointer, 1 pt + 2 shots)

i think it's a simple solution that makes it almost never worth it to hack

[Crow]

It might do the deed but I can't see automatic points given.

[CrackersPhinn]

Just adopt "advantage" rules like they have in soccer and hockey. That fixes the all intentional fouling issues-- from Hack-a-Whomever to, even more importantly to my mind, intentional fouling to stop a fast break.

[Mike G]

One FT and the ball out, on any foul against an offensive player without the ball.

[Crow]

There are folks who are against any change and folks who want changes that probably totally remove the strategy from use. Anyone else for a middle ground?

[Nate]

Another option would be for the refs to hand out Ts for intentional fouling when it brings the game to a crawl. I'm not sure more ref discretion is a good answer, but that one doesn't really require any rules changes.

I think there's a fundamental question about whether 'professional fouls' are something that should, or should not, happen in general.

... intentional fouling to stop a fast break.

The NBA has "clear path" foul rules already, though I'm not sure how aggressively they're enforced.

[Mike G]

A foul away from the ball can be called a "nuisance foul".
One shot and the ball out. It's not a tech, it counts as a PF.