Originally Posted by InfiniteBaskets
Except it also gives incentives for fouling a player in the air from behind as opposed to fouling a player from behind while he's dribbling on the ground.
It almost encourages players to make the more dangerous play anytime a defender has the ability to run with the guy on the fastbreak.
Well, there is a safe way to foul a player from behind. In fact, there's a ton of safe ways to do so. In 99% of chasedown situations, defensive players know what play they can make and whether it's going to be safe. They're also very aware of what constitutes a flagrant foul.
And while flagrant fouls occur (and sometimes on accident), they're actually very rare in comparison to non-flagrant chasedown plays or opportunities and likely minuscule when attempting to attribute a dangerous play on a player's reluctance to foul a player at half court. That is to say, the amount of dangerous plays that occur because a player wanted to foul at half court but didn't, then turned, ran, and flagrantly fouled someone are very, very small.
Instead, what the clear path rule seemed to invite is a more continuous flow of basketball, where a player who earns a breakaway gets his opportunity to... well... break away. I do not believe players see incentive in the ability to foul players dangerously from behind. I think ultimately they'd love to prevent two points with a great strip, block, or charge. In lieu of that, they'd like to commit a safe foul. In the rarest of circumstances, again, sometimes a flagrant foul occurs.