PDA

View Full Version : The Clear Path foul needs amending or tightening up.



69centers
04-26-2009, 04:52 PM
I've seen so many clear path fouls (obviously including today) and during the regular season, where the defender is running side by side and with the offensive player, and when the defender stops, pauses, or slows to swat at the ball and commits the fouls, it should not be a clear path foul. It should only be called when a player is completely behind the offensive man, and he grabs, stops, or impedes his path to the basket.

Side by side running down the court does not constitute the offensive player having a clear path, since there's no way to tell who's going to make it the bucket first. If he was in front already, that's one thing.

I've even seen a call this year where the defender stole the ball on the defensive side of the opposing player, and ran past the guy he just stole it from, getting fouled on the way buy, and it's called. How on earth can that type of play fit the rule when the defender is between the offensive guy and the bucket, and fouls him on the way by.

Also, the rule holds way too much weight with the 2 shots and the ball rule. One shot for a technical, and the ball back should be plenty.

brendol
04-26-2009, 04:53 PM
your attitude needs some amending, i can tell you that.

marlinsfan24
04-26-2009, 04:53 PM
Today Hinrich was out infront of him, but yes, the rule needs to be amended.

69centers
04-26-2009, 04:55 PM
Today Hinrich was out infront of him, but yes, the rule needs to be amended.

It looked to me like he only got in front of him when Scalabrine slowed to swat at him, but they were even at first. Part of my point is that players can be side by side but the defensive guy is always going to slow behind the guy they are fouling, because they are stopping to swat rather than keep running.

Afridi786
04-26-2009, 04:56 PM
You don't have to slow down to foul someone.

69centers
04-26-2009, 04:58 PM
You don't have to slow down to foul someone.

No, but it usually happens as the guy heading to the bucket is running harder and not stopping to do anything.

RaptorsFanatic
04-26-2009, 05:01 PM
This is so funny because its coming from a Celtics fan. FACE IT! Hinrich was fouled clear path, ya'll lost the game now move on..

No need to whine about one play ( and dont lie, Im pretty sure we all know you made this thread after the game today)

superkegger
04-26-2009, 05:10 PM
I think the clear path foul is fine the way it is. The penatly is appropriate, becuase it its stops the defender from just taking out the offensive player (or should) because the penatly is severe.

And from what I've seen, they only do call it by the book, when the defender is behind, if the offensive player gets out ahead of the defender, even if they started side by side, they don't call it unless the defender got beat. It's a very good rule, and keeps the game safe.

69centers
04-26-2009, 05:13 PM
This is so funny because its coming from a Celtics fan. FACE IT! Hinrich was fouled clear path, ya'll lost the game now move on..

No need to whine about one play ( and dont lie, Im pretty sure we all know you made this thread after the game today)

Nice try. Umm, this play actually helped us, as instead of a potential 5 point play (if he makes both FT's and their team then hits a three with the possession) it ended up being a 1 point play because we got the ball back after only 1 free throw made.

If Scal lets him go to the bucket, they get 2. So, this play helped us in this game. Believe me, there was plenty to whine about in this game, and this wasn't anywhere near one of them. In a fluke turn of events, it helped us, so why would I whine about it?

I'm just sick of seeing it called all year, when it doesn't need to be.

69centers
04-26-2009, 05:20 PM
I think the clear path foul is fine the way it is. The penatly is appropriate, becuase it its stops the defender from just taking out the offensive player (or should) because the penatly is severe.

And from what I've seen, they only do call it by the book, when the defender is behind, if the offensive player gets out ahead of the defender, even if they started side by side, they don't call it unless the defender got beat. It's a very good rule, and keeps the game safe.

That's catering a rule to the faster guys in the league. There aren't any other fouls/rules you can point to in the NBA that caters only to the fast guys. If they start side by side, the offensive guy cannot have had a clear path, even if he picks up the speed. If no one is there or alongside, then that's one thing. It should just be like any other foul where a defender gives up, slows up, or just wants to stop a bucket.

If someone starts side by side (or especially between the guy with the ball and the bucket) it should be a normal foul like any other when someone just gets beat. This happens everywhere on the court and it's just a normal foul, so why not in these instances. If someone is hacked from behind or held, it should be the clear path foul, and only then.

cwilson21
04-26-2009, 05:31 PM
I know that if it was a clear path foul against the Bulls and not against the C's that this thread wouldn't exist.

td0tsfinest
04-26-2009, 05:38 PM
if this is somehow "your reason" for the celtics losing the game, they've done plenty of these wrong in the game, they could've done better.

However, clear path is very difficult to call. Cause most of the times, the players are side to side. I thought the refs made the right call today.

NYKnickFanatic
04-26-2009, 05:45 PM
That was a good call today. Your team lost, just take it and leave it.

69centers
04-26-2009, 05:47 PM
if this is somehow "your reason" for the celtics losing the game, they've done plenty of these wrong in the game, they could've done better.

However, clear path is very difficult to call. Cause most of the times, the players are side to side. I thought the refs made the right call today.

Yup, that's exactly my reason. Guess you missed this post only like 2 posts up :pity::


Nice try. Umm, this play actually helped us, as instead of a potential 5 point play (if he makes both FT's and their team then hits a three with the possession) it ended up being a 1 point play because we got the ball back after only 1 free throw made.

If Scal lets him go to the bucket, they get 2. So, this play helped us in this game. Believe me, there was plenty to whine about in this game, and this wasn't anywhere near one of them. In a fluke turn of events, it helped us, so why would I whine about it?

I'm just sick of seeing it called all year, when it doesn't need to be.

Again, in other words, et cetera, this call actually HELPED our team in the end by the Bulls only scoring 1 instead of the maximum 5. My point is, should a team on a play such as this, be awarded the chance for a 5 point play?

Maybe they could even just give the team the 2 points, like a goaltend, and then just give the ball back to the foul committing team. At least it wouldn't give a team a chance to get 5 points out of it.

KmB728
04-26-2009, 05:57 PM
I agree, it needs to be fixed

and please stop ragging on 69centers... he never said we lost because of this call.

dtmagnet
04-26-2009, 06:37 PM
I don't see how you can say it helped you, you lost the game. Maybe he would have gone in for the lay-in and f-ed up the shot due to the Boston player's presence? I watched the game and Hinrich was ahead when the foul was commited, they don't need to adjust the rules in order to level the playing field between faster and slower players it works the way it is.

td0tsfinest
04-26-2009, 06:40 PM
Yup, that's exactly my reason. Guess you missed this post only like 2 posts up :pity::


Sorry, I just read a bit of it, its kind of long. :p

superkegger
04-26-2009, 06:52 PM
That's catering a rule to the faster guys in the league. There aren't any other fouls/rules you can point to in the NBA that caters only to the fast guys. If they start side by side, the offensive guy cannot have had a clear path, even if he picks up the speed. If no one is there or alongside, then that's one thing. It should just be like any other foul where a defender gives up, slows up, or just wants to stop a bucket.

If someone starts side by side (or especially between the guy with the ball and the bucket) it should be a normal foul like any other when someone just gets beat. This happens everywhere on the court and it's just a normal foul, so why not in these instances. If someone is hacked from behind or held, it should be the clear path foul, and only then.

With this I take issue, because when they removed hand checking, it pretty much made guys with speed unguardable. When they removed hand checking, and changed the rules to essentially make it harder to guard perimeter players, quick players all of the sudden became much better.

Not to pick on Devin Harris, because he is a good player, but he's not really an all star player. If he didn't have his speed, and the rules weren't changed to how they are, he'd be much easier to keep in check, and would be a good player, nothing more. Quick guards are so heavily favored by the NBA rules it's not even funny.

See this article: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-108/The-Year-of-the-Point-Guard.html

Anyway, the clear path rule is there for the safety of the offensive player. Otherwise you could take him out with a pretty dangerous paly and all he gets is two shots. Plus, in these cases, its usually a result of a steal or something of the like from that team on defense, and it's rewarding that instead of rewarding the team who just got beat with a chance to take an easy way out.

If you allow the defender to take the easy way out with a foul, it pretty much nixes the entire effort of the offensive player, so instead, you force the defender to actually make a defensive play, if possible. It's there to reward the offensive team, just like many of the rule changes over the past decade have.

op12
04-26-2009, 07:06 PM
looks like your heterosexuailty needs some amending lmao.... Yall lost, face it lmao!!!!

seriously he said that is not the reason for the lose. for people to continue posting this shows you dont read the thread and are just looking to bash a celtics fan.

i thought that scal was running beside him and could have continued with him to the hoop, instead he fouled him before the shot so it wouldnt be 2 free throws. its not like scal would block the shot. either way it is not why the celtics lost, but it was a questionable call. i love all these fans being so happy when the celtics lose, we lost a hard fought game let it go.

69centers
04-26-2009, 07:21 PM
seriously he said that is not the reason for the lose. for people to continue posting this shows you dont read the thread and are just looking to bash a celtics fan.

i thought that scal was running beside him and could have continued with him to the hoop, instead he fouled him before the shot so it wouldnt be 2 free throws. its not like scal would block the shot. either way it is not why the celtics lost, but it was a questionable call. i love all these fans being so happy when the celtics lose, we lost a hard fought game let it go.

Exactly, and I hate this call when it plays out like this, because very rarely have I seen this rule enforced where it was an actual guy pulling down a man from behind. Again, it's worse when someone throws a pass and it gets picked off, but they're still between the guy who stole it and the basket, but it seems the refs only care about if it's ONE ON ONE and the man heading across half court to score, rather than OPEN AND UNGUARDED AHEAD OF THE DEFENDER. Someone running alongside is the defender being there.

Really, there should be a line, and it's usually always called when it's just a one on one defensive play, like running beside someone and not wanting them to score. I'd say 6 out of 7 times I've seen this call made it's when the defender was either between the guy with the ball and the basket, or somewhat side by side, and not outright beat by them. No different than when it's someone charging the baseline with someone starting to beat them out and they get hacked. You don't get two fouls and the ball for that.

Really, I'm just ignoring everyone trying to bash us on the loss. And someone mentioning how this would not have gotten brought up had the Bulls lost. WRONG. This is a play that happened in a game today, and I would have brought it up either way. Is this not a forum to discuss the NBA and what happens in it? Well, this is a play that happened today, that didn't even decide the outcome, but can in other games, which is why I think it needs to be amended.

VCaintdead17
04-26-2009, 07:26 PM
I never even heard of the rule until today.

Super.
04-26-2009, 07:29 PM
Scal was besides the guy today! :sigh:

this play didnt end up effecting who won, and it's not the reason the Celtics lost, but the real is deffitinly wrong, and should be changed

MassoDio
04-26-2009, 08:24 PM
Clear Path to the Basket: If a fast break starts in a teamís backcourt and a defender fouls any offensive player when the team is going to score an easy basket, a clear path foul has occurred. When the foul happens, no defender can be ahead of the ball where he could defend against the easy basket.

That is the wording of the rule on NBA.com.

http://www.nba.com/features/misunderstoodrules_051128.html

Does it leave a lot for interpretation? Yes.

Does it say that the defender cannot be beside the player and still get called for a clear path foul? No.

It says that there can't be a defensive player ahead of the ball. In today's case, Scalabrini was not ahead of the ball. Whether he was next to Hinrich or not makes no difference. There was no defender ahead of the ball on the play.

In the situations mentioned of the offensive player making a steal, and the player who the ball was stolen from fouling him on the way by, the interpretation could very well be that the player would not have been able to turn around and be ahead of the ball, making it a clear path foul.

Does the rule need to be changed? No

Does the rule need to be more clearly defined? Absolutely

Most rules in the NBA do need to be more clearly defined. That is part of the reason for the terrible officiating in the league.

This play did not win or lose the game, but it did have an impact.

I don't believe the original poster meant for this to be any kind of claim that the Celtics got screwed on the play and it cost them the game.

However, I do not feel that the rule needs to be changed, just cleared up. Every situation that has been given here as a hypothetical situation, can very well be considered a clear path foul under the current definition of the rule. So the only complaint should be that the rule is not clear enough, or the rule altogether shouldn't exist. Every clear path foul that I have seen called over the course of the year can be considered a clear path foul under the current wording of the rule.

carter15
04-26-2009, 08:50 PM
was a good call and is a good rule....if they have a clear 2....give it to them or deal with the penalty.

69centers
04-26-2009, 09:27 PM
Clear Path to the Basket: If a fast break starts in a teamís backcourt and a defender fouls any offensive player when the team is going to score an easy basket, a clear path foul has occurred. When the foul happens, no defender can be ahead of the ball where he could defend against the easy basket.


Well, if someone is running along side and takes a swat, there is no way to tell that if the defender didn't swat and kept running with them, that the offensive player would absolutely make an "easy basket". To avoid it, all players have to do is run with them and foul them hard a few steps from the bucket. So it's inception to try to stop hard, injury potential fouls doesn't really make sense. If they can foul hard a few steps from the basket, the only thing it really stops is defensive players being lazy at running back, but doesn't that happen with a majority of fouls in other situations? How many times do guys lazily swat when they're beat off the dribble?

While the rule doesn't have to be done away with completely, it needs clarifying, better enforcement, and less harsh a penalty.

MassoDio
04-26-2009, 09:34 PM
Well, if someone is running along side and takes a swat, there is no way to tell that if the defender didn't swat and kept running with them, that the offensive player would absolutely make an "easy basket". To avoid it, all players have to do is run with them and foul them hard a few steps from the bucket. So it's inception to try to stop hard, injury potential fouls doesn't really make sense. If they can foul hard a few steps from the basket, the only thing it really stops is defensive players being lazy at running back, but doesn't that happen with a majority of fouls in other situations? How many times do guys lazily swat when they're beat off the dribble?

While the rule doesn't have to be done away with completely, it needs clarifying, better enforcement, and less harsh a penalty.


The first part that I highlighted:

This is a judgement call. Like most NBA rules. It does not matter if the defensive player slows down. That is not in the rule. It says that there cannot be a defensive player ahead of the ball. It doesn't say, "there cannot be a defensive player ahead of the ball, and guys who swipe to make a foul count as a guy ahead of the ball". That part of the rule is actually the clearest part. The defense has to be in front of the ball. Period.

The second part:

Guys get beat off the dribble all the time. The difference is, there are guys back, or the defense is on the defensive side of the court. The clear path has to do with stopping a fast break from happening, not stopping guys from getting beat.

jackyyy
04-26-2009, 11:42 PM
Would you still have made this thread if you guys won?

...thats right

Jezeble
04-26-2009, 11:48 PM
I will remember this thread the next time a clear path foul is called in the Celtics' favor.

Ni55anpat
04-26-2009, 11:56 PM
Stupid thread, pretty much just crying.

op12
04-27-2009, 10:47 AM
Would you still have made this thread if you guys won?

...thats right

he said he would have. so yes. anyway ill be the first to admit that pierce is one of the most guilty at commiting a clear path foul. when he loses the ball or someone steals it he will just grab them as they take off. in that instance it def should be called. in the situation with scal and hinirch i think it was questionable because scal was technically back on d and fouled.

MPScribbles
04-27-2009, 11:20 AM
It is a good rule. If an break-away layup is the obvious result of a play that is ended by a guy fouling someone that has beaten him down court then the player that was fouled should get two shots and the ball. If you don't want the other team to get that 5pt opportunity then don't foul guys after they have blown by you.

Nocioni5
04-27-2009, 11:23 AM
seriously he said that is not the reason for the lose. for people to continue posting this shows you dont read the thread and are just looking to bash a celtics fan.

i thought that scal was running beside him and could have continued with him to the hoop, instead he fouled him before the shot so it wouldnt be 2 free throws. its not like scal would block the shot. either way it is not why the celtics lost, but it was a questionable call. i love all these fans being so happy when the celtics lose, we lost a hard fought game let it go.

Do you truthfully believe that?:eyebrow: Must I show you a picture Brian Scalabrine? He looks like a combination of Will Farell on Semi-Pro and Dwight from the office! He couldn't even catch Shaq in a fast break!

On the serious note: It was clearly a fast break and hinrich had a easy bucket since he had already beat Scal. I also think that where the foul was commited also had something to do with it being a clear path since there was now way scal. could of kept up with him or caught up to him, Since Capitan kirk had already blown by him!

MPScribbles
04-27-2009, 11:27 AM
Also, as with other rule changes of late, this rule was put in place to increase the chances for exciting plays. Remember how pissed we all were about 2004 Olympics- I know I was- when every time US would have a fast break all the punk Euros would just grab someone intentionally? Why? Because we want to see that awesome break away and see what guys do when given the chance to put on a show for the fans. Stern doesn't want his league getting any less exciting so you won't see this rule changed. Get over it and hope your guys start playing defense instead of fouling.

carter15
04-27-2009, 04:04 PM
Well, if someone is running along side and takes a swat, there is no way to tell that if the defender didn't swat and kept running with them, that the offensive player would absolutely make an "easy basket". To avoid it, all players have to do is run with them and foul them hard a few steps from the bucket. So it's inception to try to stop hard, injury potential fouls doesn't really make sense. If they can foul hard a few steps from the basket, the only thing it really stops is defensive players being lazy at running back, but doesn't that happen with a majority of fouls in other situations? How many times do guys lazily swat when they're beat off the dribble?

While the rule doesn't have to be done away with completely, it needs clarifying, better enforcement, and less harsh a penalty.

just look at it this way...if no foul is commited the team gets 2 points.
with the foul they now get 2 fts and the ball...which can be anywhere from 0 to 5 points (i guess u can say 6 but wtv)...in this game in particular chicago only got 1 point if im not mistaken...which shows me the penalty in no way shud be reduced cuz then teams will often come away with 0...if they got 1 FT and the ball for example or just 2 fts which wud make no sense at all.

the ONLY other option is 1 shot and the ball but in my opinion thats too little since u have to make ur FT AND score on ur possesion to make the other team pay for the foul.

IndyRealist
04-27-2009, 04:20 PM
just look at it this way...if no foul is commited the team gets 2 points.
with the foul they now get 2 fts and the ball...which can be anywhere from 0 to 5 points (i guess u can say 6 but wtv)...in this game in particular chicago only got 1 point if im not mistaken...which shows me the penalty in no way shud be reduced cuz then teams will often come away with 0...if they got 1 FT and the ball for example or just 2 fts which wud make no sense at all.

the ONLY other option is 1 shot and the ball but in my opinion thats too little since u have to make ur FT AND score on ur possesion to make the other team pay for the foul.

:clap:

The penalty has to be worse for committing the foul instead of just letting the player blow by, to discourage people from doing it. There is actually another option, since it's not a basketball play made at the ball, it could be called a Flagant 1, which is two shots plus the ball...hmmm, interesting.

The league is legislating against intentional fouls, which a clear-path foul absolutely is. If the defender is not already in a defensive position, i.e. ahead of the ball, then it's open court. Refs might make a judgement call if the defender could have reasonably gotten into position (Tony Parker chasing down Shaq), but Scalabrine could not have caught Hinrich.

Nocioni5
04-27-2009, 05:54 PM
:clap:

The penalty has to be worse for committing the foul instead of just letting the player blow by, to discourage people from doing it. There is actually another option, since it's not a basketball play made at the ball, it could be called a Flagant 1, which is two shots plus the ball...hmmm, interesting.

The league is legislating against intentional fouls, which a clear-path foul absolutely is. If the defender is not already in a defensive position, i.e. ahead of the ball, then it's open court. Refs might make a judgement call if the defender could have reasonably gotten into position (Tony Parker chasing down Shaq), but Scalabrine could not have caught Hinrich.

very well put! :clap:

nd4T.O.
04-27-2009, 06:03 PM
how did i know a Boston fan would start this

Corey
04-27-2009, 08:46 PM
Stupid thread, pretty much just crying.

If you actually read the posts in this thread, you'd have read that 69centers isn't complaining about the loss. He's just bringing up a rule that's left up to the refs way too much.

Personally, I agree with the OP. The rule is left up to be interpreted way too much. I know there's a distinct ruling in the rule book, but there's too much of a gray area with an ability for missed calls.

It's like the restricted area when taking charges times 10. I'd like to see some tightening up as well.

I have no problem with the actual rule, as it was put in place to prevent hard fouls and injuries on the fast break with a defender racing from behind, I just wish there was a real distinction between a clear path foul, and a regular on-the-floor foul.

(And a side note: the refs did make the right call in the C's - Bulls game. Scal came from behind to foul him when he was on a clear path to the basket)