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

[H.C.]

anywhere I see this topic, I die a little.

 

[HailBlazers]

anywhere I see this topic, I die a little.

same with the ads on jerseys.

 

[Draco]

Few good ideas out there. One is have the rule for the last two minutes of the game apply to the last minute of every quarter. Then we won't have intentional fouls to gain a possession.

Another good idea; have intentional fouls be 3 FT's if behind the 3 point line but the current 2 FTs if inside it. Would still penalize poor FT shooter. But the defense would have to wait until the poor FT shooter goes inside the three point line to foul.

 

[BonesJones]

I say give a team 3 intentional fouls outside of 2 minutes before it's a technical and the ball back

 

[Minstrel]

Just give the team that's fouled the option to decline the penalty. If they decline, the ball is taken out of bounds. I don't find the whole "if you can't make free throws, you deserve to be forced to do it and hurt your team." That's not applied to other basketball skills. There isn't a way for the defense to force teams to make their center dribble the ball up the court, or to force the point guard to be the guy to get every rebound down the stretch. Missing free throws may be an exhibition of lack of skill, but constant fouling also doesn't take any skill. I think the NBA has a perfectly good argument that games bogging down into the defense doing nothing skillful so that the offense can exhibit a specific type of lack of skill is ugly product.

Outside of wanting to arbitrarily punish certain players for not having a certain skill, I don't think there's much reason for allowing purposeful fouls that the other team can't decline.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Just give the team that's fouled the option to decline the penalty. If they decline, the ball is taken out of bounds. I don't find the whole "if you can't make free throws, you deserve to be forced to do it and hurt your team." That's not applied to other basketball skills. There isn't a way for the defense to force teams to make their center dribble the ball up the court, or to force the point guard to be the guy to get every rebound down the stretch. Missing free throws may be an exhibition of lack of skill, but constant fouling also doesn't take any skill. I think the NBA has a perfectly good argument that games bogging down into the defense doing nothing skillful so that the offense can exhibit a specific type of lack of skill is ugly product.

Outside of wanting to arbitrarily punish certain players for not having a certain skill, I don't think there's much reason for allowing purposeful fouls that the other team can't decline.

Except that you don't win or lose by who dribbles down the lane or who grabs the rebound. You win games by putting the ball through the hoop. If a team is not good at that, then why not be able to exploit it until they get better? FT shooting, as noted by many many posters, is a skill that can be developed with work ethic and time spent.
I don't see why those who dont put this work in should be rewarded by not having to step up to the line.

 

[jlprk]

“It goes against the spirit of the rule book,” VanDeWeghe said. “Free throws were to compensate and deter fouls, not to encourage them.”

It's not in the spirit of the game to reward a player for being tall. Therefore at the end of each game, a player should be awarded 2 points per inch he is under the league average of 6 foot 7, and be penalized 2 points per inch he is over the average.

And let's get into economic differences. Each player from a middle class family should be penalized 5 points per game, and from a poor family, awarded 5 points.

The final score will be tallied right after the game ends.

 

[Trackjack]

I don't like the rule as it is yes it something a coach try to get back in the game. My change would be 2 free throws and ball out bounds that would limit what teams do. Yes it take away for team to get back in a game but really what the percent when the team does this they actually win the game. It not very high.

 

[Minstrel]

Except that you don't win or lose by who dribbles down the lane or who grabs the rebound. You win games by putting the ball through the hoop. If a team is not good at that, then why not be able to exploit it until they get better? FT shooting, as noted by many many posters, is a skill that can be developed with work ethic and time spent.

You win by all those things.

And dribbling can also be improved with time and effort. Every player spends the bulk of their time on their main role, and shooting isn't the main role for most (non-stretch) big men. If it were simply a defensive scheme that forced the big man to shoot the ball, then that's clever and fine...it would be like a scheme that screened opposing big men out of being able to rebound--if you can manage that, awesome. Fouling is skill-less.

Also, you say "Why should you be rewarded for not being able to shoot free throws," but it's actually the opposite. No one's asking to be "rewarded" for not being able to shoot. The defense is asking to be rewarded for fouling, when fouling by its nature mandates being punished, not rewarded. Most sports have already legislated out as much of the ability to get benefits from fouling as possible (pass interference in the NFL puts the ball at the spot of the foul to prevent taking a foul to avoid giving up a long play, plus teams can decline penalties when they'd wipe out bigger gains; soccer allows for "play on" when a foul would stop a great scoring chance, etc)...I think the NBA should do the same. Fouling should really never be the "smart play."

 

[BBert]

So ANY off-the-ball foul would be treated like a flagrant (free throw and ball out of bounds), or otherwise result in some extra penalty to the fouling team, or some extra advantage to the fouled team?

Or, are the refs going to use their devine knowledge to discern in their flawless wisdom WHICH fouls were for the purpose of putting a shitty free throw shooter on the line to try to get back into the game?

Or maybe the fouling team is only penalized if the fouled player shoots less than 60% at the line. Or less than 55%. Or whatever.

No one wants to watch players miss shots. If you are a bad free throw shooter, you shouldn't have to shoot them at all. Just have a designated free throw shooter on the floor at all times.

Honestly, it's bullshit. The "cure" is worse than the disease. Just leave it alone.

 

[Minstrel]

It's not in the spirit of the game to reward a player for being tall.

I'd argue that it is in the spirit. A game where the goal is elevated beyond the height of a human is designed to reward size.

 

[jlprk]

I'd argue that it is in the spirit. A game where the goal is elevated beyond the height of a human is designed to reward size.

Okay. Then let's say that only tall players can shoot at the end of the game. Kiki says we need to prohibit coaches from going against the spirit of the game.

 

[H.C.]

Just give the team that's fouled the option to decline the penalty. If they decline, the ball is taken out of bounds. I don't find the whole "if you can't make free throws, you deserve to be forced to do it and hurt your team." That's not applied to other basketball skills. There isn't a way for the defense to force teams to make their center dribble the ball up the court, or to force the point guard to be the guy to get every rebound down the stretch. Missing free throws may be an exhibition of lack of skill, but constant fouling also doesn't take any skill. I think the NBA has a perfectly good argument that games bogging down into the defense doing nothing skillful so that the offense can exhibit a specific type of lack of skill is ugly product.

Outside of wanting to arbitrarily punish certain players for not having a certain skill, I don't think there's much reason for allowing purposeful fouls that the other team can't decline.

Yes it is.
Tony Allen can't throw a rock in the ocean. He isn't guarded at half court like you do someone like Curry.
The purpose of defense is to force the offense into a non-efficient way of running their offense...
You don't guard someone who can't shoot.
You force someone to dribble who can't dribble.
You force players into traffic if they can't handle it.
Not everyone is played equally by defense so it is indeed applied to every sport.
In football you see teams defend against the run and force QB's to beat them with their arm. You see teams blitz QB's if they think it might confuse the QB.
It's the sameway for free throws. You can't make them? Ha well You're going to go to the line and hurt your team.
It's not like we've never seen poor FT shooters become 70%+ or better. They worked at it. Hi Przybilla, Plumlee. I could name non-Blazers too but Blazer forum and all.

When this rule gets changed....(sigh) It will be for the casual fan. Not for the game. The casual fan wants to see scoring. Not poor free throw shooters miss them over and over again.
It has nothing to do with the game. It has to do with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[42N8Bounce]

Just give the team that's fouled the option to decline the penalty. If they decline, the ball is taken out of bounds.

I like the idea.

The problem I have with most suggested modifications to the rules is the subjectivity of an 'intentional' foul or 'common' foul.

How about any off-the-ball foul (intentional or not) in the last minute of the first 3 quarters, and the last two minutes of the fourth quarter, the fouled team has the option to shoot the free throws or take it out of bounds. The foul still counts either way.

 

[Minstrel]

Yes it is.
Tony Allen can't throw a rock in the ocean. He isn't guarded at half court like you do someone like Curry.
The purpose of defense is to force the offense into a non-efficient way of running their offense...
You don't guard someone who can't shoot.
You force someone to dribble who can't dribble.
You force players into traffic if they can't handle it.
Not everyone is played equally by defense so it is indeed applied to every sport.
In football you see teams defend against the run and force QB's to beat them with their arm. You see teams blitz QB's if they think it might confuse the QB.

I've already addressed this:

If it were simply a defensive scheme that forced the big man to shoot the ball, then that's clever and fine...it would be like a scheme that screened opposing big men out of being able to rebound--if you can manage that, awesome. Fouling is skill-less.

Very few sports allow fouling as a beneficial strategy. If the NBA follows suit, it'll be removing an outlier, it won't be the outlier.

 

[H.C.]

I've already addressed this:



Very few sports allow fouling as a beneficial strategy. If the NBA follows suit, it'll be removing an outlier, it won't be the outlier.

I'm not going to go back and quote one of my previous posts in this 10 page thread... I'll just respond this way.

If fouling is skill-less, then doesn't missing free throws equal a lack of skill?
Bringing up a skill point opens up that question.
But it shouldn't be changed. Make your free throws and your team won't be have to worry because it will be a free two points.. Benefiting the team going to the line...
It sets a bad standard for youth basketball.
There is a reason why the bigs coming from overseas are far more skilled than bigs coming from America.
Changing this rule will forever mean free throws just don't matter, and further push the skill gap towards European bigs.

When this rule gets changed it won't be because of lack of defensive skill, nor an ability to hit free throws...
$$$$$ is all that matters.

 

[Minstrel]

Changing this rule will forever mean free throws just don't matter, and further push the skill gap towards European bigs.

99% of free throws have nothing to do with hack-a-gump. The idea that free throws won't matter if you can't purposely put people on the line doesn't make sense. Drawing free throws and hitting free throws will continue to be huge factors in winning games.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The goal is for the game to be better. The game isn't made better by big men shooting higher free throw percentages. The game is made better by teams not fouling. So it stands to reason that the league would focus on making the intentional foul less desirable.

The easiest solution, as mentioned several times, is too give teams the option to decline free throws--but ONLY on off-the-ball fouls. This still preserves the ability of teams to foul for possession, still gives teams the ability to foul the big guy if he actually gets the ball, and prevents refs from having to try to differentiate between "intentional" and "unintentional" fouls. It also means that big guys still have plenty of incentive to get better at shooting free throws, since they're still probably going to be getting fouled plenty in the paint. The only thing that would change is the foul of a poor shooter in a manner that is completely apart from actual basketball.

My question for the resistors to change: what precisely is the downside of the proposed change outlined above?

 

[barfo]

What would be more fun is to have a wheel-of-fortune for fouls. Sometimes you get to shoot 2 foul shots. Sometimes you get to go 5-on-4 for the next possession. Sometimes you get 1 shot and the ball. Sometimes the opposing coach gets ejected. Sometimes you get to shoot free throws until you miss.

Some will say this would be detrimental to the integrity of the game, of course.

barfo

 

[BBert]

So the relatively rare occurrence of intentionally fouling a bad free throw shooter is ruining the game, and shooting free throws in general is bad for the game, and yet it's perfectly ok and even desirable for players to purposely try to draw a foul so they can shoot free throws? We complain when a player, say CJ for example, doesn't draw "enough" fouls and shoot "enough" free throws. How is it that all of those trips to the line throughout the game by players purposely trying to get fouled aren't ruining the game for the fans, but the occasional intentional foul is? What is the ratio of stoppages of play and foul shots of players intentionally getting fouled to players being fouled intentionally, I wonder?

I think they are trying to fix a "problem" that doesn't exist; and even conceding a problem may exist, the cure is likely to be worse than the so called problem.

 

[H.C.]

99% of free throws have nothing to do with hack-a-gump. The idea that free throws won't matter if you can't purposely put people on the line doesn't make sense. Drawing free throws and hitting free throws will continue to be huge factors in winning games.

It's funny to me when people delete 90% of your post. Only to attempt to pick apart what was said. BUT ANYWAY, I'll play along.


99% of the time free throws have nothing to do with hack-a-wilt chamberlain huh?
Then the rule doesn't need to be changed, thanks for making my point.

 

[Minstrel]

It's funny to me when people delete 90% of your post. Only to attempt to pick apart what was said. BUT ANYWAY, I'll play along.

I quoted the part of your post I was responding to. I didn't selectively edit it to change what you were saying.

99% of the time free throws have nothing to do with hack-a-wilt chamberlain huh?
Then the rule doesn't need to be changed, thanks for making my point.

It'll still be a good change, if they do it, IMO. It just won't make free throws meaningless, as you alleged.

 

[blazerboy30]

Just give the team that's fouled the option to decline the penalty. If they decline, the ball is taken out of bounds. I don't find the whole "if you can't make free throws, you deserve to be forced to do it and hurt your team." That's not applied to other basketball skills. There isn't a way for the defense to force teams to make their center dribble the ball up the court, or to force the point guard to be the guy to get every rebound down the stretch.

The defense can't force a bad free throw shooter to hurt his team. The team with the horrible free throw shooter has the choice and freedom to not have that player in the game. Problem solved.

 

[blazerboy30]

The goal is for the game to be better. The game isn't made better by big men shooting higher free throw percentages. The game is made better by teams not fouling. So it stands to reason that the league would focus on making the intentional foul less desirable.

The easiest solution, as mentioned several times, is too give teams the option to decline free throws--but ONLY on off-the-ball fouls. This still preserves the ability of teams to foul for possession, still gives teams the ability to foul the big guy if he actually gets the ball, and prevents refs from having to try to differentiate between "intentional" and "unintentional" fouls. It also means that big guys still have plenty of incentive to get better at shooting free throws, since they're still probably going to be getting fouled plenty in the paint. The only thing that would change is the foul of a poor shooter in a manner that is completely apart from actual basketball.

My question for the resistors to change: what precisely is the downside of the proposed change outlined above?

In my opinion, if the goal is to have less free throw shooting in a game, change the rules for that reason, not because teams are intentionally fouling bad free throw shooters. This rule change comes across as protecting certain players and doesn't equally affect all teams. It will positively affect a few select teams.

I wouldn't be against the NBA trying to reduce fouls and improve game flow, but I am against catering to a few players and teams that can't shoot free throws.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

In my opinion, if the goal is to have less free throw shooting in a game, change the rules for that reason, not because teams are intentionally fouling bad free throw shooters. This rule change comes across as protecting certain players and doesn't equally affect all teams. It will positively affect a few select teams.

I wouldn't be against the NBA trying to reduce fouls and improve game flow, but I am against catering to a few players and teams that can't shoot free throws.

The goal is not to have fewer free throws; the goal is to have fewer instances of undesirable contact. That is accomplished by creating a disincentive thereto. Simply calling fewer fouls will result in more contact, and uglier basketball. Allowing teams to decline free throws on off-ball fouls will result in less contact, and better basketball.

Pretty simple.

 

[blazerboy30]

The goal is not to have fewer free throws; the goal is to have fewer instances of undesirable contact. That is accomplished by creating a disincentive thereto. Simply calling fewer fouls will result in more contact, and uglier basketball. Allowing teams to decline free throws on off-ball fouls will result in less contact, and better basketball.

Pretty simple.

You definitely beat the crap out of that strawman you built. Congrats!

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You definitely beat the crap out of that strawman you built. Congrats!

Please elaborate. I was actually redirecting away from your "if the goal is to have fewer free throws" strawman, and back to the original topic of preventing the intentional off-ball foul.

 

[blazerboy30]

Please elaborate. I was actually redirecting away from your "if the goal is to have fewer free throws" strawman, and back to the original topic of preventing the intentional off-ball foul.

I said I would support rule changes to improve the flow of the game, and fewer free throws (ie fewer fouls). I don't support a rule change this is specifically targeted to protect and help a select few players and teams.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I said I would support rule changes to improve the flow of the game, and fewer free throws (ie fewer fouls). I don't support a rule change this is specifically targeted to protect and help a select few players and teams.

This particular rule change would, in fact, improve the flow of some games. Why is the fact that it wouldn't necessarily impact all games a bad thing? Are rule changes only of value if they impact all teams equally? Was the shot clock a bad idea because only done teams were running four corners ball stopping offense?

 

[jlprk]

10 years ago, the League Office considered this change because Shaq played in Los Angeles. Now, the League Office is reconsidering this change because DeAndre Jordan plays in Los Angeles. I guarantee that the league would never consider this change because of a Blazer player.