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

[BlazerWookee]

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

You're right about one thing: The Jordan hug has got to go. But the solution is to take the player off the floor if his lack of a particular skill is detrimental to his team's chances of success. Just say no to affirmative action for shitty free throw shooters.

 

[blue9]

Why would that be so appalling?

Really?
So, Howard goes up to dunk, Plumlee contests the shot causing a miss but because his arms came down at the end of the play a foul is called. HOU now gets to decide whether they want to put Howard at the line OR if they'd rather take the side-out so Beard can attempt to draw another foul to shoot FTs instead. That's not basketball.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Never should of adjusted the rule a few years ago! I can easily make 8-10 FT's. An NBA player should be able to do the same. If they cant, they can sit on the bench because they are a liability on the court.

 

[riverman]

Really?
So, Howard goes up to dunk, Plumlee contests the shot causing a miss but because his arms came down at the end of the play a foul is called. HOU now gets to decide whether they want to put Howard at the line OR if they'd rather take the side-out so Beard can attempt to draw another foul to shoot FTs instead. That's not basketball.

I agree with this...it's the guy they foul without the ball, nowhere near the basket that is muddying up the endgame for me. I hated watching Shaq shoot 20 freethrows in the 4th qtr of a playoff game.

 

[BlazerWookee]

I agree with this...it's the guy they foul without the ball, nowhere near the basket that is muddying up the endgame for me. I hated watching Shaq shoot 20 freethrows in the 4th qtr of a playoff game.

I loved it, because I was rooting for him to fail, and he was terrible from the line.

 

[riverman]

I loved it, because I was rooting for him to fail, and he was terrible from the line.

I prefer to win by knockout, not decision...I think it ruined a competitive aspect of the game. Refs weren't letting that Laker team fail. Shaq could put his knee in your chest and hand on your face when he dunked and get the +1

 

[blue9]

I agree with this...it's the guy they foul without the ball, nowhere near the basket that is muddying up the endgame for me. I hated watching Shaq shoot 20 freethrows in the 4th qtr of a playoff game.

If people can't put up with the rare occasion where a basketball game becomes a FT-shooting contest, they have NO BUSINESS watching baseball or football. Yet I bet a good majority of NBA fans are also NFL and MLB fans.

It's not like basketball games are consistently grinding to a halt. It's only close games against teams that have a starting PF/C who can't shoot FTs. Just a stab in the dark, but I'd put it at between 5-10% of games. We're changing the rules to coddle professionals who can't adequately perform their job duties because it's "ruining" 5-10% of the games!?!

 

[BlazerWookee]

If people can't put up with the rare occasion where a basketball game becomes a FT-shooting contest, they have NO BUSINESS watching baseball or football. Yet I bet a good majority of NBA fans are also NFL and MLB fans.

It's not like basketball games are consistently grinding to a halt. It's only close games against teams that have a starting PF/C who can't shoot FTs. Just a stab in the dark, but I'd put it at between 5-10% of games. We're changing the rules to coddle professionals who can't adequately perform their job duties because it's "ruining" 5-10% of the games!?!

HIT 'EM IN THE MUSCLE! HIT 'EM IN THE MUSCLE!

 

[riverman]

If people can't put up with the rare occasion where a basketball game becomes a FT-shooting contest, they have NO BUSINESS watching baseball or football. Yet I bet a good majority of NBA fans are also NFL and MLB fans.

It's not like basketball games are consistently grinding to a halt. It's only close games against teams that have a starting PF/C who can't shoot FTs. Just a stab in the dark, but I'd put it at between 5-10% of games. We're changing the rules to coddle professionals who can't adequately perform their job duties because it's "ruining" 5-10% of the games!?!

We've already half a season in, doubled the hack fouls from last year...it's become a go to move..and for me, it's not coddling the pros...it's ruining the endgame..Silver sees this as watering down the entertainment for fans...not the analytics of coaches. I have no problem with rule changes. I like the 3pt shot. I like the 3 sec rule. I'm glad they're looking at the game and trying to improve it

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Really?
So, Howard goes up to dunk, Plumlee contests the shot causing a miss but because his arms came down at the end of the play a foul is called. HOU now gets to decide whether they want to put Howard at the line OR if they'd rather take the side-out so Beard can attempt to draw another foul to shoot FTs instead. That's not basketball.

I might posit that a team choosing to take the side out and run another play is actually more "basketball" than free throws are. However, if you're that averse to that notion (which you obviously are), it was mentioned earlier that the side out option could easily be limited to off-ball fouls.

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

I already addressed that. Limiting the rule change to off-ball fouls only would address that as well.

 

[riverman]

If people can't put up with the rare occasion where a basketball game becomes a FT-shooting contest, they have NO BUSINESS watching baseball or football. Yet I bet a good majority of NBA fans are also NFL and MLB fans.

It's not like basketball games are consistently grinding to a halt. It's only close games against teams that have a starting PF/C who can't shoot FTs. Just a stab in the dark, but I'd put it at between 5-10% of games. We're changing the rules to coddle professionals who can't adequately perform their job duties because it's "ruining" 5-10% of the games!?!

Football lost me when it became a refs highlight looking at replays over and over...10 minutes between 4 second plays...I can't stand to watch it anymore. Baseball I only watch the playoffs. The escalation in intentional fouls this season is snowballing...it's happening way more than I can ever remember in NBA history..these are not isolated occasional events

 

[Natebishop3]

I might posit that a team choosing to take the side out and run another play is actually more "basketball" than free throws are. However, if you're that averse to that notion (which you obviously are), it was mentioned earlier that the side out option could easily be limited to off-ball fouls.


I already addressed that.

But that doesn't really solve the issue.

Your'e down two, the other team has the ball and there's only 20 seconds left........ are you supposed to just let them run out the clock? Right now we would intentionally foul to stop the clock and hopefully force a miss to get the ball back in a position to tie or take the lead. If the NBA starts calling intentional fouls differently, that could completely fuck things up.

 

[Natebishop3]

Never should of adjusted the rule a few years ago! I can easily make 8-10 FT's. An NBA player should be able to do the same. If they cant, they can sit on the bench because they are a liability on the court.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh you can maybe make 8-10 free throws in a gym, by yourself, but I'd like to see you make 8-10 in an NBA game. And not only that, but you're not 7'0 with hands that are big enough to crush my skull.

 

[Denny Crane]

How about only fouls in the act of shooting in the last 2 minutes get FTs? Or the fouled team (in the penalty) gets the option to take the ball out or the FTs?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But that doesn't really solve the issue.

Your'e down two, the other team has the ball and there's only 20 seconds left........ are you supposed to just let them run out the clock? Right now we would intentionally foul to stop the clock and hopefully force a miss to get the ball back in a position to tie or take the lead. If the NBA starts calling intentional fouls differently, that could completely fuck things up.

You're not paying attention. I said that the side-out option would no longer be available in the last two minutes. In the scenario you described, a foul would result in free throws.

And as mentioned above, if the rule change were limited to off-ball fouls, then a trailing team could still foul the ball-handler for possession without resulting in a side-out.

 

[Natebishop3]

You're not paying attention. I said that the side-out option would no longer be available in the last two minutes. In the scenario you described, a foul would result in free throws.

And as mentioned above, if the rule change were limited to off-ball fouls, then a trailing team could still foul the ball-handler for possession without resulting in a side-out.

No side-out option? Dame never hits "The Shot" and we lose game six of the Houston series

 

[riverman]

No side-out option? Dame never hits "The Shot" and we lose game six of the Houston series

That's sort of like saying Pistol Pete and Jerry West got robbed by not having a 3 pt shot so losing out on the scoring title dominance....this is about looking ahead, not back

 

[Natebishop3]

That's sort of like saying Pistol Pete and Jerry West got robbed by not having a 3 pt shot so losing out on the scoring title dominance....this is about looking ahead, not back

We are talking about taking away a major part of the strategy that goes into the end of a close game.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

No side-out option? Dame never hits "The Shot" and we lose game six of the Houston series

No, I mean no option for a team to elect a side out over free throws on a foul that would normally result in free throws.

Let me take this all the way back to the beginning, so we can make sure we're on the same page. The way I would change the rule is that if a foul is committed against a player who does not possess the ball, and that foul would normally result in free throws, that player's team can elect to take a side-out with a 14-second shot clock, equivalent to a pre-penalty foul on the floor. Fouls on shooters or ball-handlers (when a team is in the penalty) would still result in free throws as they always have. This eliminates the hack-a-whoever strategy, but still preserves the ability to foul for possession when trailing late.

 

[riverman]

We are talking about taking away a major part of the strategy that goes into the end of a close game.

yup...and it's a strategy that I'd like to see go away. I'm thrilled Silver is addressing this.

 

[Natebishop3]

No, I mean no option for a team to elect a side out over free throws on a foul that would normally result in free throws.

Let me take this all the way back to the beginning, so we can make sure we're on the same page. The way I would change the rule is that if a foul is committed against a player who does not possess the ball, and that foul would normally result in free throws, that player's team can elect to take a side-out with a 14-second shot clock, equivalent to a pre-penalty foul on the floor. Fouls on shooters or ball-handlers (when a team is in the penalty) would still result in free throws as they always have. This eliminates the hack-a-whoever strategy, but still preserves the ability to foul for possession when trailing late.

Isn't there already a penalty for fouling away from the ball in the last two minutes?

 

[riverman]

The counter would be that teams would look to have the ball in their better free throw shooters hands at crunch time..they wouldn't get bailed out by a bear hug at half court foul against a guy who sucks at the line. Great players throughout history have sucked at the line....that's not changing. Coaches need their best defenders on the court and it's a risk they need to take...offense for defense...they do it all the time subbing shooters for rebounders

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Isn't there already a penalty for fouling away from the ball in the last two minutes?

Sure is. The hack-a-player strategy (that the NBA would like to discourage) is being executed outside of that final two minute time frame.

 

[BBert]

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

I think it's an important point. If you can't foul to try to get more possessions to try to win, I guess players should just walk off the court at the 2 minute mark if the lead looks too great. And if you can, why can't you do it other times?

What's next, you can't guard bad shooters?

Dunks are entertaining (to some). How about you can't challenge shots within the restricted area?

Fouling to get the ball back or to improve your chance to win is a legitimate strategy. It could backfire, and it does put the offending team into the penalty.

Remember long ago the league had some kind of "3 to make 2" rule? That was dumb, but maybe they could do that for fouls away from the ball?

 

[riverman]

If you're a Popovich fan, he hates the intentional foul but says he's forced by the rule to use it....I'm with Pops on this one

 

[KeepOnRollin]

If you're a Popovich fan, he hates the intentional foul but says he's forced by the rule to use it....I'm with Pops on this one

He isn't forced by the rule to use it. He is using it because it is sometimes a legit chance to win and he wants to win. Like anyone would. You better believe that Rivers would foul DeAndre Jordan as well if he went to DAL.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

He isn't forced but the rule to use it. He is using it because it is sometimes a legit chance to win and he wants to win. Like anyone would. You better believe that Rivers would fall DeAndre Jordan as well if he went to DAL.

Just like the Rockets have fouled Jordan, even though they hate it when teams foul Howard.

All coaches are hypocrites.

 

[Natebishop3]

Sure is. The hack-a-player strategy (that the NBA would like to discourage) is being executed outside of that final two minute time frame.

Okay, so just expand the current rule to include all 48 minutes, but if Jordan has the ball (or Plumlee or Howard, etc) then they are fair game IMO.

 

[BBert]

The more I think about it, the more I think if the goal is to make intentially fouling away from the ball a less desirable strategy, a simple "3 shots to make 2" rule for all fouls away from the ball would be a very simple way to nudge the scales in that direction.

 

[Natebishop3]

The more I think about it, the more I think if the goal is to make intentially fouling away from the ball a less desirable strategy, a simple "3 shots to make 2" rule for all fouls away from the ball would be a very simple way to nudge the scales in that direction.

I have always felt like that's a fair answer for clear path. Two shots and the ball seems extreme to me. Give 3 to make 2 and that would be fair.