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

[PtldPlatypus]

This already occurs. Hack a whoever is an off ball foul.

I'm glad you're here. What's "The Rappin' Referree's" take on this issue?

 

[barfo]

Ok, how about this. There is a 'wheel of fortune' that the player who is fouled spins. The options include 1 to 3 foul shots, side out, disqualification of the fouling player, disqualification of the fouled player, reversal of the game score at the time, do-over, foul shots but from half-court, replacement of fouling player with randomly chosen fan, fouling player forced to eat 10 hot dogs before play resumes, etc.

barfo

 

[riverman]

This already occurs. Hack a whoever is an off ball foul.

yes it does...but what I envision Silver addressing is not something familiar so we don't really have any examples to justify it yet. Sports rules have changed all my life...with the exception of the NFL...I've liked most of the changes.

 

[dviss1]

I think the rule should be left as is.

Hit your Goddamn free throws

 

[dviss1]

yes it does...but what I envision Silver addressing is not something familiar so we don't really have any examples to justify it yet. Sports rules have changed all my life...with the exception of the NFL...I've liked most of the changes.

Sports rules don't change to protect players weaknesses unless it is a safety issue. Name one rule change that was done to protect a player's weakness.

 

[riverman]

I'm hoping to see the rule change personally....watched the Ducks destroy Colorado last night and the crowd was going crazy until the last two minutes of intentional fouling...then everyone was headed for the exits before the game was over...why? Nobody needed to watch free throws at that point...I imagine folks watching TV were channel surfing about then. I don't see it as a selling point

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I think the rule should be left as is.

Hit your Goddamn free throws

Well who cares what you think?!

 

[riverman]

Sports rules don't change to protect players weaknesses unless it is a safety issue. Name one rule change that was done to protect a player's weakness.

3pt shot....paint challenged players could put up big numbers without sucking at driving the lane....that's their weakness...should they put it back to a 2 pt shot because they suck at layups?

 

[BlazerWookee]

Yes. They break the rules, and benefit. You can elaborate all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they break the rules, and then benefit from doing so.

And they benefit from doing so only because of a glaring weakness in the opponent's game, one that can be remedied by taking the no-free-throw-shooting player out of the game.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Sports rules don't change to protect players weaknesses unless it is a safety issue. Name one rule change that was done to protect a player's weakness.

The hand-checking rule was changed because perimeter players couldn't shake defenders while being hand-checked.
The "Charles Barkley" rule, because post defenders couldn't stop players backing them down into the key.
Offensive and defensive weaknesses protected by rule changes.

 

[riverman]

If you look at Euro ball...I believe there is no 3 sec lane violation...so that rule keeps Rudy Gobert in the NBA from camping in the paint and swatting shot attempts away for a whole possession....is Rudy being penalized for being so tall to give Tim Frazier a fair chance at finishing at the rim or should Frazier learn to finish a shot with Gobert in his grill for 24 seconds? It's like saying....if you're not tall enough, too bad for you

 

[PtldPlatypus]

And they benefit from doing so only because of a glaring weakness in the opponent's game, one that can be remedied by taking the no-free-throw-shooting player out of the game.

And then the opposing team would still benefit from breaking the rule, because now the team with the poor FT shooter is forced to put a less effective player on the floor.

Is there anywhere else in professional sports where a team can repeatedly violate a rule, continuously suffer the codified penalty for that violation, and be better off?

 

[riverman]

A player fouls out of a game because of the rules....maybe the intentional foul should have a penalty or limit on how many times you could do it before you intentionally foul out of the game...like getting two techs...you're outta there

 

[dviss1]

3pt shot....paint challenged players could put up big numbers without sucking at driving the lane....that's their weakness...should they put it back to a 2 pt shot because they suck at layups?

Nice try. The 3 pointer was not invented for that. It was invented for higher scores and better floor spacing.

That same 3 pointer helps big men put up numbers just as big.

 

[BlazerWookee]

And then the opposing team would still benefit from breaking the rule, because now the team with the poor FT shooter is forced to put a less effective player on the floor.

Is there anywhere else in professional sports where a team can repeatedly violate a rule, continuously suffer the codified penalty for that violation, and be better off?

The team with the poor FT shooter SHOULD be forced to put a less effective player on the floor. That's the whole point. Don't enable incompetence and laziness by shielding poor free throw shooters just to make the game "more fun to watch."

Intentional walks in baseball, taking a safety rather than trying to run the ball out of the end zone, conceding a point in ping pong by slamming the ball as hard as you can at your opponent's nuts...

 

[riverman]

Nice try. The 3 pointer was not invented for that. It was invented for higher scores and better floor spacing.

That same 3 pointer helps big men put up numbers just as big.

advantage...smaller outside shooters..I disagree but it's all good. I want the intentional foul gone...have for ages but I've always been in the minority when it comes to this subject

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The team with the poor FT shooter SHOULD be forced to put a less effective player on the floor. That's the whole point. Don't enable incompetence and laziness by shielding poor free throw shooters just to make the game "more fun to watch."

Intentional walks in baseball, taking a safety rather than trying to run the ball out of the end zone, conceding a point in ping pong by slamming the ball as hard as you can at your opponent's nuts...

Yet you want to enable incompetence and laziness by shielding poor defensive teams by allowing them to benefit from fouling.

Baseball's a terrible comparison because it's the only game in which the defense holds the ball.
Taking a safety gives the opponent points and the ball. Are you advocating for the same in basketball?
Slamming a ping-pong ball at your opponents' nuts is more like Andre Miller running through Blake Griffin, foul be damned. Oh, that memory always makes me happy...

 

[BlazerWookee]

Yet you want to enable incompetence and laziness by shielding poor defensive teams by allowing them to benefit from fouling.

Baseball's a terrible comparison because it's the only game in which the defense holds the ball.
Taking a safety gives the opponent points and the ball. Are you advocating for the same in basketball?
Slamming a ping-pong ball at your opponents' nuts is more like Andre Miller running through Blake Griffin, foul be damned. Oh, that memory always makes me happy...

If the free throw shooters are even remotely competent, the "hack-a" strategy would hardly ever come into play, and there would be very little, if any, benefit from fouling.

 

[riverman]

If the free throw shooters are even remotely competent, the "hack-a" strategy would hardly ever come into play, and there would be very little, if any, benefit from fouling.

The advantage is stopping the clock and gaining a possession whether they make them or not

 

[BlazerWookee]

The advantage is stopping the clock and gaining a possession whether they make them or not

Trading more than about 1.25 points per two free throws for clock stoppage will usually help the free throw shooting team build an insurmountable lead. Trading about .75 points per two free throws for clock stoppage is (and should be) one heck of a good deal for the fouling team.

 

[handiman]

Sports rules don't change to protect players weaknesses unless it is a safety issue. Name one rule change that was done to protect a player's weakness.

Moving in the 3-pt line? Maybe not the best example, since that didn't work out so well.

 

[dviss1]

The hand-checking rule was changed because perimeter players couldn't shake defenders while being hand-checked.
The "Charles Barkley" rule, because post defenders couldn't stop players backing them down into the key.
Offensive and defensive weaknesses protected by rule changes.

Hand checking is a foul. It's displacement of a player. It is contact that disrupts the player's rhythm, balance, speed or quickness.

Move your feet on D.

The 5 second back to the basket rule was created to stop players from posting up their man from way out on the 3point line (something Barkley used to do). Hence the Charles Barkley rule. That's an advantage disadvantage call.

Stop trying to go through players instead of around them.

 

[dviss1]

Moving in the 3-pt line? Maybe not the best example, since that didn't work out so well.

Not really a rule change.

 

[riverman]

The team with the poor FT shooter SHOULD be forced to put a less effective player on the floor. That's the whole point. Don't enable incompetence and laziness by shielding poor free throw shooters just to make the game "more fun to watch."

Intentional walks in baseball, taking a safety rather than trying to run the ball out of the end zone, conceding a point in ping pong by slamming the ball as hard as you can at your opponent's nuts...

I HATE intentional walk in baseball for the same reason...if you're a pitching ace you want the challenge of striking out a Barry Bonds and the fans don't want to see him walked everytime he's at bat

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Hand checking is a foul. It's displacement of a player. It is contact that disrupts the player's rhythm, balance, speed or quickness.

Move your feet on D.

The 5 second back to the basket rule was created to stop players from posting up their man from way out on the 3point line (something Barkley used to do). Hence the Charles Barkley rule. That's an advantage disadvantage call.

Stop trying to go through players instead of around them.

So rule changes are now advantage/disadvantage rather than player safety issues? Hand checking wasn't a foul before; it became one when the powers that be decided it was better for the game. Backing a player down from the three-point line was completely OK, until someone found a way to create an insurmountable advantage out of it. Hell, a good drop step is physical contact that creates an advantage; if Andre Drummond perfects an unstoppable drop step, should that suddenly become a foul too?

Face it--rules change when the governing body decides it's better for the product. I get that you're a hoops conservative, but maybe you should try to think more progressively.

 

[Denny Crane]

There's no question the 3pt rule was made to give small players a chance to be in the league.

 

[e_blazer]

If the NBA wants to eliminate hacking they ought to have a qualification standard for NBA players that they be able to make at least 60% of their foul shots.

 

[BBert]

A player fouls out of a game because of the rules....maybe the intentional foul should have a penalty or limit on how many times you could do it before you intentionally foul out of the game...like getting two techs...you're outta there

Is it going to be referee discretion as to what is an intentional foul? That would suck. Or just any off the ball foul, like a guy trying to fight through a screen gets called for a foul and -- whoops -- the other team gets two shots (or whatever) and the ball to punish the intentional foul that wasn't?

If they are going to try to discourage "intentional" fouling, I hope to god they tread lightly, and don't force the referee make a judgement call on when to invoke the penalty.

 

[BBert]

I HATE intentional walk in baseball for the same reason...if you're a pitching ace you want the challenge of striking out a Barry Bonds and the fans don't want to see him walked everytime he's at bat

It's called 'strategy'. Baseball is all about strategy. Baseball would be of little interest without the strategy that goes into the game.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's called 'strategy'. Baseball is all about strategy. Baseball would be of little interest without the strategy that goes into the game.

Team is down 3 runs in the third inning. Looks like rain. Pitcher walks a guy, then make pickoff throw after pickoff throw until it does rain, game called. The lead is wiped out, game rescheduled.

Strategy?

They don't do it out of some code of honor.