Hardwood Paroxysm: How we’d fix the NBA

Fix the clear path rule, pronto

By Caleb Nordgren (@chisportsguy41)

In theory, clear path fouls are a great idea. Nobody wants to see fouls instead of fast breaks. But the way it is defined and called makes me want to shove my face through a plate glass window.

The clear path rule in its most basic form says that if a non-shooting foul is committed by a defender while the offensive player has the ball with no defenders between him and the basket (hence “clear path”), the offensive player in question shall shoot two free throws and receive the ball. Which is fine, mostly, if a bit of a mouthful. But in order to qualify, the fouling defender can’t be in front of the offensive player, which is A) incredibly arbitrary; B)mostly useless, with no differentiation between “next to” and “in front of”; and C) leads to endless video reviews as the refs attempt to figure out whether the defender was in violation of the rule.

Here’s my suggestion: Any foul away from the basket in transition by a defender results in two shots and the ball for the offense. Transition is considered to be any time three or more defenders are behind halfcourt when the ball crosses said line. There would be no reviews. Presumably even NBA referees are capable of counting to three, and the distinction of whether or not a player had crossed the line is one that officials are used to making. Furthermore, if it’s close, call it a clear path because fouling to stop a fast break is terrible and people who do it should be ashamed of themselves.

Does this create problems in the case of guys going for steals in the open court and committing fouls that way? I guess. But I also don’t really care because the whole point here is to open up opportunities in transition, and if guys are going for strips and don’t get them cleanly, then that’s their problem. Risk-reward.

There. I fixed it. You’re welcome.