Talk:Personal foul (basketball)

Flagrant fouls

I don't see why there isn't a separate page for Flagrant Fouls of the NBA. It redirects to personal fouls, where there is no explanation of flagrant fouls. They are two very different things.

Charging and blocking fouls

I would like to see an informed person elaborate on WHEN the charging and blocking fouls were added to the rules of basketball, as well as the rationale for their addition to the game. I don't remember these rules being around in the 1960s.

See [1] for a partial history of NBA rule changes. There is nothing listed at that link that specifically addresses "charging" and "blocking" other than perhaps the 1954-55 change to record offensive fouls, but there are many changes listed over the years that affect the scope of enforcement of such fouls (e.g., the change to the "no-charge" area prior to the 1997-98 season; issues related to screening prior to the 1999-2000 and 2000-01 seasons; etc). Please sign your posts in the future. Myasuda 16:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do both feet have to be planted to be a charing foul? Or can the defensive player jump straight up and it not be a charge if they make contact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.72.108 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The cylinder concept applies when a defensive player jumps straight up i.e. their legal "position" extends vertically from where their feet left the ground or if they didn't jump at all. Of course, if they jump sideways, they don't establish a new "position" until they land.

I don't believe the interpretation of assessing a charging foul on the offense if the defence "was still, or moving sideways or backwards but not forwards, when contact occurred" is fair and certainly is something many referees will get wrong, especially in the NBA. If the defence is moving sideways their legal guarding position occurs when their feet are in contact with the ground and their "cylinder" is established. Of course in principle it is typically moving...very fast, trying to stay in front of a ballhandler. The critical point is when contact occurred - typically both the offensive and defensive players have been moving and contact is made when one or both are in the middle of having a new legal "cylinder". Their legal position has either been established already, with both feet on the ground, or it was the position they had immediately prior to landing on the ground with both feet planted. The laws of physics should override any judgement call. A defender going sideways or forwards (into the offensive player) when contact is made should NOT be rewarded with a charging call on their opponent. If they are set still or moving directly backwards, then the opponent should be called for a charging foul. This is easy to see. The one big area that needs improvement is the big man "backing in" manouvre, when they pump and pound the defender closer and closer to the basket to get their 3 foot easy shot. It appears the defenders legitimate position is disregarded, at least in the NBA. This is a big advantage for the big goliaths out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.48.189 (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Purely about basketball?

I notice that this article solely discusses the basketball definition of "personal foul", when there is the notion of a personal foul in many, many other sports, and in some cases (e.g. American football) it's specifically referred to as a "personal foul". Might I suggest that this article be renamed "Personal foul (basketball)", and that a broader "Personal foul" article be written that refers to and briefly summarizes this one, and covers other sports' notions of personal fouls? Then, immediately preceding the basketball section, an italicized link can be provided along the lines of "Main article: Personal foul (basketball)". Of course, there'd have to be some genuine effort put into adding genuine content to the broader article, since it shouldn't be a disambiguation page. I'm not saying this should happen, just offering it as a suggestion, given that "personal foul" is a term and concept that is hardly exclusive to basketball. Dave (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes fromt the 50s and 60s

I think that one very significant change was the elimination of the single free throw on common fouls before the bonus was reached; however as I recall this did not come in until the 70s or possibly even the 80s. I can't remember when. I think the reasoning was to speed up the game. Wschart (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Similar articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems like Personal foul (basketball) and Foul (basketball) are similar topics. Should they be merged?—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't even know there was that other article...I agree they should be merged. AllPurposeGamer (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

i think they should  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.209.6 (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personally, I think a merge is incorrect. There are separate articles for each type of foul (personal, technical and flagrant). It should stay that way. Yes most fouls are personal, but each type should have its own article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The article Foul (basketball) covers more than personal fouls. I have pared it down to be an overview of fouls and to point to the articles on the individual classes of foul for details. There is a summary of the changes at Talk:Foul (basketball). If this is a suitable resolution, the template calling for the merge can be removed from both pages. Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've struck the close above due to new input on this page, as consensus here has changed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"Sixth-foul Status"

I can't find a citation (no longer even the rules on the league websites), but in U.S. semi-pro basketball such as the PBL and ABA, where some teams have a limited number of marquee players, a coach could reinsert a player with six fouls into a game, even when not necessary to field a complete team, subject to the same rule that every additional foul would be penalized with an extra technical-foul shot. Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Estudiantes vs Unicaja Málaga - Carl English y Zoran Dragić.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Estudiantes vs Unicaja Málaga - Carl English y Zoran Dragić.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 18, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Zoran Dragić (right) committing a personal foul on Carl English during a 2013 basketball game between Game Estudiantes and Unicaja Málaga. Personal fouls, defined as illegal personal contact with an opponent which affects gameplay, are the most common type of foul in basketball, but are not always considered unsportsmanlike.Photograph: Carlos Delgado

Fouling Out Strategy

I came to this page hoping to better understand the playing strategy relating to the avoidance of "fouling out". For example - during many NBA games, a player will be benched by his coach after just 3 fouls, 'to avoid getting more fouls'; but then the player comes back after a break. Then the same player may be benched again at 4 fouls, for the same reason. But if 6 is the 'magic number' that gets the player ejected, why remove a player only temporarily at lower numbers of fouls? The discussion by the commentators strongly suggests this is done to somehow avoid having the player 'get more fouls' ... but if they come back in after 5 minutes, they can just as easily get those same 'more fouls'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.248.176 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It may motivate the opposition and de-motivate the own team to have a player foul out. Though getting into "foul trouble" is an arbitrary measure, sitting the player down may result in (1) discussions with the coaches as to what he is doing that is either illegal or is inducing the refs to call fouls on him; (2) rest for a player who is so tired that he is starting to play sloppily; (3) a break for a player who is getting such frequent calls against him that he might react against the refs. Granted that the last five minutes are no "more important" than five minutes in the first half, but coaches tend to want, in those last five minutes, to have the maximum options on whom to play. Anyone else with a better explanation? Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Personal foul (basketball). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408230326/http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf to https://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the link works. But it would be good if someone can substitute a link to rules more current than 2008. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)