OT NBA Finally Ready To Make Rule Change On Hack-A-Player

[BigGameDamian]

The NBA may finally be ready to create rule changes to the Hack-A-Player rules.

“I’m increasingly of the view that we will be looking to make some sort of change in that rule this summer,” said Adam Silver.

Silver has long been neutral to the strategy of intentionally fouling a player who is poor at free throws.

“Even for those who had not wanted to make the change, we’re being forced to that position just based on these sophisticated coaches understandably using every tactic available to them," Silver said. "It’s just not the way we want to see the game played."

There have been nearly 300 Hack-A-Player instances this season compared to 164 in all of last season.

DeAndre Jordan, Andre Drummond and Dwight Howard comprise the majority of Hack-A-Player fouls.
http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/240678/NBA-Finally-Ready-To-Make-Rule-Change-On-Hack-A-Player

 

[BlazerWookee]

That's bullshit. If a player can't be bothered to improve his free throw shooting he shouldn't be shielded by some cockamamie rule.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

That's bullshit. If a player can't be bothered to improve his free throw shooting he shouldn't be shielded by some cockamamie rule.

Ha, they should make a rule that after your 10th free throw miss as a single player in a game that the other team gets to shoot a technical each time you miss.

 

[HailBlazers]

Not the way you want to see the game played huh?

How about the sophisticated players that have learned to fool the refs with flop antics and the overall pussification of the game.

But Na, let's focus on hack an NBA player, the supposed best in the world, thst can't even score a free throw.

Maybe they should move the line in..

 

[BigGameDamian]

Just like any other new rule implemented that the fans didn't like, they'll get over it. The game will go on!

 

[Harry's Raincoat]

Any hack-a-player fouls must be shot underhanded from the top of the key!

 

[KingSpeed]

I've been against such a rule change for a long time but I get it now. It's so arbitrary that you can do it for the first 10 minutes but not the last 2. They're not competitive fouls. They're just people walking up to a guy without the ball and hugging him or grabbing his arm. It's stupid. I'm ready for the change.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

At the same time the NBA should move back the free throw line to 12ft. The NFL moved back the extra point line and it did make the game more exciting.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

How about go the other way:
Instead of playing OT, have an FT-off (like some other sports do). First team to miss loses the game. Players shoot in order of minutes played that game.

So, if, for example, Drummond plays the most minutes, he shoots first.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it's boring watching Plums shoot FT after FT. I'd rather watch Dame do his thing.

They can count the # of instances, somehow. They can come up with a rule, like "2FT and the ball back" to discourage it. They do have to differentiate for late game fouls to stop the clock and make it a FT contest, which is valid.

 

[blue9]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[handiman]

The league is probably trying to keep the center position from being totally eliminated by the heavy reliance on 3-pt shooting.

 

[HolyBackboard]

If you can't make free throws, you shouldn't be on the court. You know the easiest way to stop the Hack-A strategy? Making one or two free throws.

 

[tlongII]

I disagree with the rule change. You've GOT to MAKE your FREE THROWS!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The NBA does not have a vested interest in players improving their free throw percentages; their interest is in making the game more appealing to fans and advertisers. Free throws are stoppages in the action, reductions in the excitement of the game, and are therefore not desirable. However, permitting excessive contact unreasonably inhibits players from being able to perform the amazing feats of athleticism that make the game great, so free throws as a penalty for fouls are a necessary evil.

However, consider the purpose of a free throw--it is intended to be a penalty for a violation of the rules (a foul), and therefore a deterrent to future violations. As any parent knows, if a penalty is no longer sufficient to serve as a deterrent, then it needs to be altered in order to accomplish its purpose. With the evolution of hack-a-player strategy, it is only natural for the NBA to change the foul penalty to discourage intentional fouls, and improve the overall quality of the game.

Sure, pro basketball players should be able to make free throws. But reasonable people operate in the world of is, not the world of should. As it is, the game as a whole is harmed by the rules rewarding teams who foul intentionally. Remove their reward (ie, allow teams who are fouled to elect to take the ball out of bounds rather than require free throws), and you remove their incentive to violate the rules.

 

[Natebishop3]

The NBA does not have a vested interest in players improving their free throw percentages; their interest is in making the game more appealing to fans and advertisers. Free throws are stoppages in the action, reductions in the excitement of the game, and are therefore not desirable. However, permitting excessive contact unreasonably inhibits players from being able to perform the amazing feats of athleticism that make the game great, so free throws as a penalty for fouls are a necessary evil.

However, consider the purpose of a free throw--it is intended to be a penalty for a violation of the rules (a foul), and therefore a deterrent to future violations. As any parent knows, if a penalty is no longer sufficient to serve as a deterrent, then it needs to be altered in order to accomplish its purpose. With the evolution of hack-a-player strategy, it is only natural for the NBA to change the foul penalty to discourage intentional fouls, and improve the overall quality of the game.

Sure, pro basketball players should be able to make free throws. But reasonable people operate in the world of is, not the world of should. As it is, the game as a whole is harmed by the rules rewarding teams who foul intentionally. Remove their reward (ie, allow teams who are fouled to elect to take the ball out of bounds rather than require free throws), and you remove their incentive to violate the rules.

However, how do you deter hack-a-?? without taking away the ability to foul at the end of a game to try to force a miss and maybe tie or take the lead?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

However, how do you deter hack-a-?? without taking away the ability to foul at the end of a game to try to force a miss and maybe tie or take the lead?

Perhaps you remove the side out option in the final 2 minutes of a game, thereby eliminating "hack-a-player" from 46 of the 48 minutes.

 

[Rhal]

Should we take away dunking now because it gives an advantage to younger players. Should we get ride of the 3p shot or jump shots all togethor because some people are really really bad at it?
It sucks that we change a game that would emiminate a portion of a players game that those players are horrible at and now dont have to work on simply because its not that entertaining.

 

[handiman]

Make it some sort of intentional foul. One shot and possession. No one would risk those odds.

 

[Natebishop3]

Make it some sort of intentional foul. One shot and possession. No one would risk those odds.

So let me give you a secenario:

The Blazers are down 2. There's 20 seconds left. They need the ball back. They can't let the other team run the clock out.

Can they still foul to hopefully force a miss and get the ball back? How is this different than Hack-A-??? and how do the refs differentiate?

 

[blue9]

Great idea - giving the refs even more grey area to operate within. Now they get to determine another person's intentions? What is this Minority Report bullshit?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Should we take away dunking now because it gives an advantage to younger players. Should we get ride of the 3p shot or jump shots all togethor because some people are really really bad at it?
It sucks that we change a game that would emiminate a portion of a players game that those players are horrible at and now dont have to work on simply because its not that entertaining.

Not about advantages or about parts of the game that players are bad at. It's about finding a proper deterrent to intentional rules violations. Awarding free throws doesn't cut muster anymore.

Great idea - giving the refs even more grey area to operate within. Now they get to determine another person's intentions? What is this Minority Report bullshit?

If the rule change is simply giving the fouled team the option to not shoot free throws, the refs are given no more authority than previously.

 

[blue9]

If the rule change is simply giving the fouled team the option to not shoot free throws, the refs are given no more authority than previously.

Sure they are - they get to determine whether the team has a choice or not. Unless teams get to choose between side-out and FTs on all fouls, which would be even more appalling.

 

[tlongII]

Bogus rule change. FT's are a part of the game. If you can't shoot them you deserve to be punished.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Sure they are - they get to determine whether the team has a choice or not. Unless teams get to choose between side-out and FTs on all fouls, which would be even more appalling.

Why would that be so appalling?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Defense is a part of the game. If you can't stop a team from scoring without fouling you deserve to be punished.

FTFY.

 

[Dan Marang]

Here's a couple takes from the SI staff

 

[riverman]

I'm all for the 2 freethrows and the ball idea. I've watched the game evolve over many decades and the hack a shaq trend is ruining the endgame for me. The increase in the use of it is actually frightening. Most of the time it doesn't involve a guy with the ball in his hands, so to me, that's not a basketball play.

 

[Natebishop3]

So we're just ignoring my point about how it could completely fuck up end-of-game strategy?

 

[riverman]

So we're just ignoring my point about how it could completely fuck up end-of-game strategy?

I do feel that you have the right to foul any guy with the ball in his hand just like trying to stop a layup on a fast break...but to walk over to Jorday and hug him when they bring the ball up...to me, that's gotta go..also get rid of gaining possession after they miss and it won't be such a clock issue