WCC Perspective: Eliminating “Fouling Out,” Like or Dislike?

Mar 13, 2014; Atlanta, GA, USA; Mississippi Rebels head coach Andy Kennedy reacts to play against the Mississippi Rebels in the second round of the SEC college basketball tournament at Georgia Dome. Mandatory Credit: Paul Abell-USA TODAY Sportshether we like it or not, rules and regulations usually do not stand the test of time. Changes to the game are made frequently, more prominently adding a shot clock and a 3-point line.

With that being said, will the concept of “fouling out” eventually become extinct? Ole Miss Head Coach Andy Kennedy believes it should.

In an article with Insideolemisssports.com, the Rebels head man said that the whole notion of players “fouling out” of a game should go to the wayside, but with a catch.

"“Kennedy says a fifth foul should not result in a player’s ejection. Instead, let the player stay in the game and foul as much as he wants. But every foul after five would give two free throws – and the ball – to the other team."

It’s an interest idea, and Kennedy had some interesting commentary as well.

"“We’re the only sport where the best players can be eliminated from the game,” Kennedy said. “Let’s just make it where it really has some teeth. If you foul, the other team’s going to get two shots and the ball. You talk about really having to think now as a coach! It still allows the best players to be in the game so that the fans can see what they came to see.”"

With the current rule in place, there is already a great deal of strategy involved. Last season, BYU head coach Dave Rose started Luke Worthington over Eric Mika in order to eat up some fouls from the get-go and prevent Mika from having to sit with too many fouls. In this proposed change, that adjustment wouldn’t have needed to be made.

The new strategy would be simple: do I play my player with five fouls and up or do I sit my player on the bench? Every coach, undoubtedly, would take an interesting approach to this. It could be fun to observe.

Think about how crazy intentionally fouling would be. If a player with more than five fouls does the fouling, then the game is even more out of reach.

While there are some benefits, there are also some downsides.

Officials might take this as an opportunity to be more liberal with their whistle, as they are no longer indirectly responsible for disqualifying a player. In addition, players might be more careless on the court, since too many fouls won’t foul them out either.

In general, I kind of like this change. Do I think it will make a major impact and change the game for the better? No, but I think it is something to consider. I like the idea of star players not being forced to sit on the bench in pivotal moments.

Will it ever happen and will players, coaches and fans every embrace it though? Probably not.