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

[Eja117]

I hate anti defense rule changes.  If you're gonna do that then I need a return to 1990s defense that allowed the handchecking thing as opposed to today where you get called for breathing on a guy.

One or the other, not both

[D Dub]

The question should be, why aren't the refs capable of interpreting the rules correctly?


Intentional foul = two shots and ball. 


Simple as that, folks.

[fairweatherfan]

The question should be, why aren't the refs capable of interpreting the rules correctly?


Intentional foul = two shots and ball. 


Simple as that, folks.

There's no such thing as an intentional foul in the NBA rulebook. 

[SHAQATTACK]

Put the game in the hands of the players and coaches .  If they want to foul and take a chance the guy misses ...why not .....only a few players are so bad it is habit to foul them. 

We don't want to put more the of the game I. The hands of the ref than they already have . Too many gray area calls as it is. 

It will only cause more arguments and bad feelings at the end of games than the few game that Howard and Jordon and Drummond play in.

They can learn to shoot free throws like everybody else

Or the. Let's give Guys under 6 ft tall a special rule ......it's harder for them to dunk .....no one is allowed to interfer with their drives to basket and foul them INTENTIONALLY  to stop a score .

Your making up rules for giant guys who can't or wo 't practice free throws. .....and it's just a few to boot......this is the craziest thing I heard .

[max215]

Good, no one should shoot 36 free throws in one game.

[KG Living Legend]

 Hate to say I was right. However I was right.

[PhoSita]

The question should be, why aren't the refs capable of interpreting the rules correctly?


Intentional foul = two shots and ball. 


Simple as that, folks.

There's no such thing as an intentional foul in the NBA rulebook.

I guess this is the crux of the issue -- free throws are a core part of the game.  But ostensibly, the original intention was that a foul was something that happened because a player broke a rule while trying to do something within the rules. 

Now, teams have learned that fouls can be strategically advantageous.  Because free throws are not automatic, there are times in the game when a player shooting free throws is preferable to a near-guaranteed basket.  And beyond that, teams have realized sometimes you'd rather have one particularly bad free throw shooter attempt two free throws instead of giving the other team a chance to run an offensive set.

So the question is, are teams allowed to foul on purpose for strategic reasons?  Or do we want free throws to only result from what appears to be a good faith attempt at playing defense legally?

If that's the case, fine, but the resulting change would have to go farther than simply discouraging teams from hacking poor foul shooters.  I just don't like the idea of changing the rules relating to a core aspect of the game in response to a specific set of circumstances that only arises in a handful of matchups.  That's how you end up with a set of convoluted rules that don't make logical sense when taken as a whole.

[Denis998]

Why not just fine the coaches use the strategy? Kind of like the anti flopping rules. That way the rules dont get changed, but the motivation/frequency of the Hack a Shaq will decrease.

[guava_wrench]

I'm against changing the rules. These guys get paid millions. If they don't want to look stupid missing free throws they should hire a tutor and practice.

But if the rules do change I think players should foul out after 4 or 5 fouls instead of 6. Fouls become too valuable to just give away, the floor opens up even more, and teams who build deep rosters are rewarded instead of teams who built around one or two stars with filler.

No one is trying to protect players from looking stupid. They are trying to keep games interesting to watch.

[guava_wrench]

Isaiah Thomas cannot guard players in the post. Why not make posting up illegal as well? 

How is that relevant? Do you understand why they want to stop the intentional fouls?

It makes the game very boring because people stop playing basketball. That is what they want to get rid of. It has nothing to do with protecting bad shooters.

[PhoSita]

Why not just fine the coaches use the strategy? Kind of like the anti flopping rules. That way the rules dont get changed, but the motivation/frequency of the Hack a Shaq will decrease.

Why fine them?  They're taking advantage of the rules as they currently exist.

[LilRip]

free throw shooting is a skill that should be learned, but watching Drummond attempt 36 free throws is pretty ridiculous. Thus, maybe the rules do need an update. How about this: outside of 2 minutes, when a player is fouled off the ball, the one handling the ball shoots the free throws.

This way, we don't change the rules too much but we still avoid these crazy "5 fouls in 9 seconds" scenarios.

[danglertx]

instead of punishing the team that can actually play the game of basketball, why aren't we looking at punishments for teams that continue to trot out these few players who can't hit free throws.  Obviously missing free throws isn't enough of a punishment, so we should be coming up with another punishment to either get these guys to hit a reasonable amount of free throws or get them glued to the bench.

[guava_wrench]

instead of punishing the team that can actually play the game of basketball, why aren't we looking at punishments for teams that continue to trot out these few players who can't hit free throws.  Obviously missing free throws isn't enough of a punishment, so we should be coming up with another punishment to either get these guys to hit a reasonable amount of free throws or get them glued to the bench.

They have no interest in punishing anyone. They just don't want the games to get boring. Don't get caught up on trying to be just. All that matters is the entertainment.

[hwangjini_1]

Put the game in the hands of the players and coaches .  If they want to foul and take a chance the guy misses ...why not .....only a few players are so bad it is habit to foul them. 

We don't want to put more the of the game I. The hands of the ref than they already have . Too many gray area calls as it is. 

It will only cause more arguments and bad feelings at the end of games than the few game that Howard and Jordon and Drummond play in.

They can learn to shoot free throws like everybody else

Or the. Let's give Guys under 6 ft tall a special rule ......it's harder for them to dunk .....no one is allowed to interfer with their drives to basket and foul them INTENTIONALLY  to stop a score .

Your making up rules for giant guys who can't or wo 't practice free throws. .....and it's just a few to boot......this is the craziest thing I heard .

first off, not all giant guys who cant shoot free throws do so by choice or lack of effort. wilt chamberlain put in a LOT of time and money practicing. he stunk at it.

in this case, the problem may be the rule as they are currently written. some posters write as if rules come from above and are divine laws beyond the realm of the mundane and immutable. no. all rules in basketball are arbitrary and created by people to achieve one goal...make the game of basketball playable and entertaining. THAT is why they exist.

i posted once before about how basketball, and other sports, had to change some of their rules since some players/teams simply were too good and their abilities diminished the overall game for everyone else. (in the nba players cannot dunk their free throws. why? wilt could do it. so to accommodate those lesser players who couldnt, and to save the game, rule changes were made.)

while not the same as the above in that we are now talking about a lack of ability, the argument should really revolve around the impact of a rule on the game.

to be honest, keeping the current option to foul bad free throw shooters makes for one one Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.ty viewing experience by many fans, including me. cripes, how many games in the nba today devolve into foul-and-ft endings? i, for one, dont find that entertaining. the game switches from one of speed and skill to blunt, grunt fouling followed by tedious fts.

if changing the rule makes basketball as a sport and event BETTER, then the leadership SHOULD change the rules.  the authors of the current rule did NOT intend "jumping on other players' backs" to be the result of this rule change they made years ago.

the rule was written originally by people to improve the game. but it is not doing so.

i have no trouble changing the rule to improve the game.  but be forewarned, in the future other coaches may find ways to circumvent these changes as well.