a different way to look at it. i’ve never thought of it that way.
I’ve always been a firm believer in “earing your points at the striped line” but now I think I’ll change my beliefs from what you’ve said. It makes complete sense.
Consider this recd man.

plus one free throw. This would limit intentional fouls to only when absolutely necessary like the end of a game. It is frustrating as a fan to miss out on a dunk and being stuck watching two free throws instead. I tend to believe the player earned their points when they got in position to make the easy basket. To paraphrase General Patton, he shouldn’t have to earn the same points twice.

The guy committing the foul was Jarvis Hayes (Chuck plays for the Rockets).

My sporting background (Australian Rules Football) conditions me a little more to acts of brutality, but the big problem is what is “clearly” an intentional foul.

Subjectivity kills sporting rules and if there is a different point scale for intentional fouls then it is sure to become a point of contention as players become more subtle in the way they beat the suitcase out of their opponents and refs are asked to discern shades of grey rather than black and white situations.

Speaking as a player, your natural instinct on defense is to prevent the other team from scoring. Sometimes, that means fouling. A good foul can be just as productive as a block or other type of defensive play. While defenders should never try to hurt the guy they are fouling, I think taking away that option for a defender would not be in the best interests of the game.

So granted, it would be hard to make the difference between a “desperation” foul and a honest attempt at good defense.

On one hand you don’t want to discourage attempts at playing defence (the all-star game proves this .. or even the Suns of a few years back .. everyone loved to watch that team but I really thought there was nothing fun to watch .. but that on the side).

On the other I still think that if the defender makes a foul, even if he didn’t mean to, it should still be the defender who is punished.

So the best is probably somewhere in between. Maybe that in-between is how it is now, giving a foul to the defender and awarding the offence a chance to get the points anyway.
Maybe it’d be better once we’re in the bonus every shooting foul automatically gives 2 points to the offence instead of immediate free throws .. Or maybe there’s other alternatives.

That, and the point artreddin says, in-air collisions like above should, in my view, be flagrant fouls is.

As a quick side point, for all the problems that exist with the refs, respect to them, it must be an incredibly difficult job.

Weird, that no one’s mentioned this yet, but the rules already have a mechanism to prevent the wrong type of fouling. If a player has a clear path to the basket and is fouled from the side/behind, he gets two free throws and the ball back. Any other situation, and the defender still could theoretically prevent a field goal, and therefore deserves the right to foul.

That’s the NBA’s take, and I’m not sure how they could make it more fair without basing it completely on referee subjectivity. Sure, losing a few dunks stinks, but I’m not sure it’s such a hugely unfair advantage for the defense. The would-be dunker might only make one of two at the line, but how many other times does a defender get so badly that they can’t even properly foul, resulting in a three point play?