View Full Version : NBA: why doesnt the NBA allow the game to flow after a 24 second shot clock?
apalisoc_9
03-12-2016, 04:38 AM
When are they going to change this POS? If a team shoots the ball and they run out of 24 seconds and the opposing team gets the rebound..no need to kill the game and inbound the ball..
This should be an obvioud change. Way too many stoppage already.
UNT Eagles 2016
03-12-2016, 04:56 AM
It's something announcers complained about quite a bit 10-15 years ago, but it never got changed, so the media has moved on to whining about other things, like hack-a-player and what you should and should not be able to look at during instant replay.
Raven
03-12-2016, 09:44 AM
because it's an infraction.
/thread
Mitch
03-12-2016, 12:13 PM
Eh that's ok. Get rid of hack-a-shaq and late games will be much better.
Nope. Keep hack a shaq. Professional players don't need bailouts.
because it's an infraction.
/thread
This
It's a shot clock violation, just like stepping out of bounds, non-shooting foul, 3 second, traveling, are violations. The ball has to be inbounded. Just because the ball is in flight doesn't mean it should play on, else what if the shooting team catches the ball?
Intentional foul away from the ball (hack-a-shaq) is annoying because it disrupts the flow, but that's what it's meant to do. Regardless, the game against teams like Houston or OKC will be spent mostly just watching people shoot free throws. Whether it's intentional and the shooter sucks or it's the shooter driving the lane recklessly and getting to the line 20+ times a game, it's disruptive and annoying but it's still how the game is played. If you're going to get rid of intentional fouls away from the ball, you need to get rid of playing to get fouled. Being a great FT shooter doesn't justify you getting to the line any more than being a shitty one.
spurraider21
03-12-2016, 01:42 PM
Eh that's ok. Get rid of hack-a-shaq and late games will be much better.
set a minimum required FT% for players
Mitch
03-12-2016, 01:45 PM
Set a minimum dunk:layup ratio also
set a minimum required FT% for players
Spurtacular
03-12-2016, 11:01 PM
because it's an infraction.
/thread
apalisoc_9
03-12-2016, 11:56 PM
because it's an infraction.
/thread
sure, but this is something that can be singled out easily, IMo,
sure, but this is something that can be singled out easily, IMo,
No
TDMVPDPOY
03-13-2016, 04:04 AM
this other rule i dont get is the inbound pass and moving the ball pass half court
u have 5 seconds to inbound
u have 8 seconds to walk the ball up
say during the final 5 seconds u inbound but let the ball roll up the court without anyone touching it, shouldnt that be a 5second violation...
Raven
03-13-2016, 07:45 AM
sure, but this is something that can be singled out easily, IMo,
that's like saying, it would be easy for 1+1 to be 3, you just need to decide it.. And no, it's not.
Seventyniner
03-13-2016, 09:47 AM
What happens if the defending team looks like they're going to get the rebound, then an offensive player steals it and goes in for a layup? Are the officials going to whistle the play dead after the fact and wipe out the basket?
Better to just blow the whistle immediately every time.
On a side note, the NBA really needs to adopt the FIBA rules of not allowing timeouts while the ball is in play. That and drop both teams to 2 timeouts when the clock gets under 1 minute.
Brazil
03-13-2016, 10:49 AM
If you want to improve flow of the game, institute the intentional foul... If you intentionally foul a player it's 2 FTs and possession back to the fouled team... Problem solved... No more hack a
resistanze
03-13-2016, 11:04 AM
If you want to improve flow of the game, institute the intentional foul... If you intentionally foul a player it's 2 FTs and possession back to the fouled team... Problem solved... No more hack a
Does that apply in end of game situations? Or do you mean only off the ball?
Brazil
03-14-2016, 07:37 AM
Does that apply in end of game situations? Or do you mean only off the ball?
it applies on all game situations on and off the ball... that would eliminate for instance the intentional foul to avoid the easy lay up... or you try to defend a shot by contesting it properly and you are fine or you foul off the ball or grab the arm to prevent an easy shot and you penalize your team twice
If you want to improve flow of the game, institute the intentional foul... If you intentionally foul a player it's 2 FTs and possession back to the fouled team... Problem solved... No more hack a
In that event folks would just hard foul in a swipe at the ball and it would be hard to tell if the foul was intentional. It would be the same as a flagrant.
Teams that hire guys who cannot shoot a FT should be faced with the possibility that they get sent to the line intentionally. It's not any different than leaving a shitty 3pt shooter wide open and doubling someone else.
The league needs to only consider if the act is in the spirit of competition and not just making a mockery out of a rule. Most instances I've seen it done is to slow the pace and get the dominant big off the floor. If it works it works. Most of the time it doesn't work. Regardless, the game is often stopped by FT shooting anyhow. Intentional or not, it's still a FT contest. If fans hate it so much let them just stop watching. Eventually GMs will tell head coaches to cut it out.
Cowboys_Wear_Spurs
03-14-2016, 07:58 AM
When are they going to change this POS? If a team shoots the ball and they run out of 24 seconds and the opposing team gets the rebound..no need to kill the game and inbound the ball..
This should be an obvioud change. Way too many stoppage already.
It's not that. If the shot is in the air, they will let play continue. If the shooter still has the ball and is in the process of shooting when the 24 sec clock runs out, they call the violation. It's a VIOLATION. just like 3 seconds, Defensive 3 sec, delay of game, etc. The reason they blow the whistle is b/c the offensive team might get the off rebound. How would you feel if the refs let play continue and the opposing got the offensive rebound and scored. You would be bitchin' about them NOT calling the violation.
It's not that. If the shot is in the air, they will let play continue.
Not if it's an air ball
The reason they blow the whistle is b/c the offensive team might get the off rebound. How would you feel if the refs let play continue and the opposing got the offensive rebound and scored. You would be bitchin' about them NOT calling the violation.
I'm not arguing in favor of OPs idea here because I think the potential for loopholes might be too high but his proposal is clearly for when the defensive team gets the rebound in the case of an air ball. I'm guessing he'd still have a violation being called if the offensive team gets the rebound, otherwise it wouldn't make much sense :lol
Brazil
03-14-2016, 09:27 AM
In that event folks would just hard foul in a swipe at the ball and it would be hard to tell if the foul was intentional. It would be the same as a flagrant.
Teams that hire guys who cannot shoot a FT should be faced with the possibility that they get sent to the line intentionally. It's not any different than leaving a shitty 3pt shooter wide open and doubling someone else.
The league needs to only consider if the act is in the spirit of competition and not just making a mockery out of a rule. Most instances I've seen it done is to slow the pace and get the dominant big off the floor. If it works it works. Most of the time it doesn't work. Regardless, the game is often stopped by FT shooting anyhow. Intentional or not, it's still a FT contest. If fans hate it so much let them just stop watching. Eventually GMs will tell head coaches to cut it out.
Well yes indeed the notion of intentional is quite hard to tell but not much harder than most of the calls anyway... Besides, referees already have to call flagrants fouls, difference between flagrant and intentional would be the notion of danger for the player, a flagrant would be a "hard" intentionnal leading to a situation where a player could be seriously injured. In that sense it would not change that much referees job.
Now I share your opinion about if you can't shoot a FT, you should be exposed for this weakness but again if people want see basketball game being more fluid and not a FT contests it seems to me this is the only option.
IMO it would worth the trying with D league for instance. We are talking about spirit of the competition and killing an easy 2 pts because you have been blown out on defense is kinda weak and reward the incompetent defender while penalizing the competent offense.
Another option could be, as suggested by Resistanze with his question, to get this rule going for the last 5 mn of the game, with that you still punish the bad FT shooterand kill the boring last 2 minutes of a game where a team leads by 3/4 and get fouled at every possession.
Neurosis
03-14-2016, 09:39 AM
this other rule i dont get is the inbound pass and moving the ball pass half court
u have 5 seconds to inbound
u have 8 seconds to walk the ball up
say during the final 5 seconds u inbound but let the ball roll up the court without anyone touching it, shouldnt that be a 5second violation...
Yeah I didn't understand this one either. Since the clock doesn't start until another player touches the ball, it shouldn't really count as inbounded.
The time where it leaves the inbounders hand and touches the next player is like a limbo.
Well yes indeed the notion of intentional is quite hard to tell but not much harder than most of the calls anyway... Besides, referees already have to call flagrants fouls, difference between flagrant and intentional would be the notion of danger for the player, a flagrant would be a "hard" intentionnal leading to a situation where a player could be seriously injured. In that sense it would not change that much referees job.
Now I share your opinion about if you can't shoot a FT, you should be exposed for this weakness but again if people want see basketball game being more fluid and not a FT contests it seems to me this is the only option.
IMO it would worth the trying with D league for instance. We are talking about spirit of the competition and killing an easy 2 pts because you have been blown out on defense is kinda weak and reward the incompetent defender while penalizing the competent offense.
Another option could be, as suggested by Resistanze with his question, to get this rule going for the last 5 mn of the game, with that you still punish the bad FT shooterand kill the boring last 2 minutes of a game where a team leads by 3/4 and get fouled at every possession.
The game should not change to meet the current "we want" mantra. It's the game of basketball, if you don't want it don't watch. I want baseball to be guys throwing the ball at each others nuts but they won't institute that for some reason. I want hitters to have to run non stop for 30 minutes prior to batting. I want the NFL to stop the running game and only have passing. I don't want to see "clock management" sequences where someone intentionally steps out of bounds to stop the clock. It bores me. Run run run.. always run. Always dunk. Always pass. Always home run. No bunting, no base hits, no walks. Run run run... change rules to make it so.
You could inbounds the basketball and it could sit on the floor for the entire game if no one touched it. What's the rule there? It's not done because it's not conducive to winning. You do see players roll the ball up the floor though, to save shot clock. The shot clock needs to start when the ball touches the floor or a player on the inbounds. Players playing to get stats, to get the triple double, doing stupid shit to get meaningless stats. What's the rule there? Westbrook's bowling ball offense that gets him to the FT line 100 times a game. What's the rule there? Same for Harden. Why does it make a difference whether the guy is sent intentionally by the opposition or because he chooses to go? Intentionally getting to FT line has always been a legit game tactic, so the alternate to that is forcing someone there. You cannot just have the really good shooters getting there and the really bad ones being protected from it. There are intentional fouls all the time (they have a foul to give) that are used in strategic fashion. No I don't like it either, but I also don't like Harden's 29 FTA a game.
Let's just get rid of the free throw. Problem solved. If you get fouled while shooting, you get 1 point and the ball out of bounds. That fixes everything and speeds the game up. If you're shooting a 3, too fucking bad. You get 1 point and the ball out of bounds.
Then there's the act of taking a charge. That's an intentional foul, is it not? Sure you're forcing the other guy to foul you, or you're getting called for a block, but you've intentionally put yourself in a position for one of those two things to be called. There's the intentional foul with just a few seconds left to force the offense to take the ball out again.
The game is full of intentions and a lot of them are fouls. People like DeMonkey don't need to be made into juggernauts who cannot shoot a fucking free throw. That tactic is what levels the field when these oafs get into the league. Get an oaf who can hit a FT, you're in trouble.
Brazil
03-14-2016, 11:32 AM
The game should not change to meet the current "we want" mantra. It's the game of basketball, if you don't want it don't watch. I want baseball to be guys throwing the ball at each others nuts but they won't institute that for some reason. I want hitters to have to run non stop for 30 minutes prior to batting. I want the NFL to stop the running game and only have passing. I don't want to see "clock management" sequences where someone intentionally steps out of bounds to stop the clock. It bores me. Run run run.. always run. Always dunk. Always pass. Always home run. No bunting, no base hits, no walks. Run run run... change rules to make it so.
You could inbounds the basketball and it could sit on the floor for the entire game if no one touched it. What's the rule there? It's not done because it's not conducive to winning. You do see players roll the ball up the floor though, to save shot clock. The shot clock needs to start when the ball touches the floor or a player on the inbounds. Players playing to get stats, to get the triple double, doing stupid shit to get meaningless stats. What's the rule there? Westbrook's bowling ball offense that gets him to the FT line 100 times a game. What's the rule there? Same for Harden. Why does it make a difference whether the guy is sent intentionally by the opposition or because he chooses to go? Intentionally getting to FT line has always been a legit game tactic, so the alternate to that is forcing someone there. You cannot just have the really good shooters getting there and the really bad ones being protected from it. There are intentional fouls all the time (they have a foul to give) that are used in strategic fashion. No I don't like it either, but I also don't like Harden's 29 FTA a game.
Let's just get rid of the free throw. Problem solved. If you get fouled while shooting, you get 1 point and the ball out of bounds. That fixes everything and speeds the game up. If you're shooting a 3, too fucking bad. You get 1 point and the ball out of bounds.
Then there's the act of taking a charge. That's an intentional foul, is it not? Sure you're forcing the other guy to foul you, or you're getting called for a block, but you've intentionally put yourself in a position for one of those two things to be called. There's the intentional foul with just a few seconds left to force the offense to take the ball out again.
The game is full of intentions and a lot of them are fouls. People like DeMonkey don't need to be made into juggernauts who cannot shoot a fucking free throw. That tactic is what levels the field when these oafs get into the league. Get an oaf who can hit a FT, you're in trouble.
No need to go extremes on your example, intentional foul is not to be compared to "if you miss a 3 you receive 1 pt"
nfl, nba, soccer, rugby... all sports went through major rule changes. NFL was pretty much like rugby at one point, they changed everything, I'm not saying for good or bad but it changed and you like NFL as it is today, it does not mean it won't change any further in the future, NBA game was changed also with the hand checking, 3 sec in the paint, the 3 points etc... to arrive at the product it is today.
Sometimes you change the rules for the safety of the players like NFL and we know that with professionalization, rugby rules will have to evolve too, sometimes it evolves thanks to the technology (see NFL instant replays) and sometimes it evolves for the entertainment value of the product and you don't need to wait a decline to act.
In that case, as the change would be quite significant you have to test it, take coaches, players, GMs opinions, see how it works with FIBA bb etc... If result is convincing why not implementing it ? If you run the NBA or a franchise you don't go the "if you don't want it don't watch it" sport exists to be watched. Boxing did not adapt to its time and has been marginalized, so yeah people don't like it and don't watch and stuff is pretty much dead.
No need to go extremes on your example, intentional foul is not to be compared to "if you miss a 3 you receive 1 pt"
That's not what I said. I said if you get fouled while shooting a 3 you get 1 and the ball out of bounds, same for a 2.
nfl, nba, soccer, rugby... all sports went through major rule changes. NFL was pretty much like rugby at one point, they changed everything, I'm not saying for good or bad but it changed and you like NFL as it is today, it does not mean it won't change any further in the future, NBA game was changed also with the hand checking, 3 sec in the paint, the 3 points etc... to arrive at the product it is today.
I know the game changes, but the reason for this is so that teams with oaf for big men can fare well. It's disguised as "fans don't want to see it" but the truth is that the big man has become almost obsolete in the game and people want one way players like Jordan to be forces in the league, to stay on the floor longer.
I just think that the issue isn't intentional fouling away from the ball, but the fact that a good portion of the game is taken up watching people shoot free throws. Why does it matter why the person is shooting the FT?
Sometimes you change the rules for the safety of the players like NFL and we know that with professionalization, rugby rules will have to evolve too, sometimes it evolves thanks to the technology (see NFL instant replays) and sometimes it evolves for the entertainment value of the product and you don't need to wait a decline to act.
It's been acknowledged by Sliver and many coaches that players are getting free attempts to score points and that they have game weaknesses that are being exploited as they should be. The only problem is how that's happening. If the FT shooter was a 90%er, he'd rack up a ton of points that way. You can still foul a guy instead of allowing him to shoot a three. You can still intentionally miss a FT to force the other team to go full court instead of getting it at the half court line (haven't seen that in a long time but still) and you can foul away from the ball to get a dead ball to change out players. No one seems to mind that. It's the free throws that bothers them and the fact that it happens over and over in sequence so a large portion of the game time is spent walking to the FT line and shooting FTs.
In that case, as the change would be quite significant you have to test it, take coaches, players, GMs opinions, see how it works with FIBA bb etc... If result is convincing why not implementing it ? If you run the NBA or a franchise you don't go the "if you don't want it don't watch it" sport exists to be watched. Boxing did not adapt to its time and has been marginalized, so yeah people don't like it and don't watch and stuff is pretty much dead.
"People" doesn't mean everyone, just some. I doubt anyone likes watching people shoot free throws for whatever reason. Why is the intentional foul a worse reason than the "intentionally drawing the foul"?
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I don't like the intentional foul away from the ball. I think it's chickenshit and stupid most of the time, but I'd like to see it go away because it doesn't work, not because fans cry about it.
Brazil
03-14-2016, 12:21 PM
That's not what I said. I said if you get fouled while shooting a 3 you get 1 and the ball out of bounds, same for a 2.
point taken but still a bit extreme compared to instauring something that already exists like the notion of intentional
I know the game changes, but the reason for this is so that teams with oaf for big men can fare well. It's disguised as "fans don't want to see it" but the truth is that the big man has become almost obsolete in the game and people want one way players like Jordan to be forces in the league, to stay on the floor longer.
I just think that the issue isn't intentional fouling away from the ball, but the fact that a good portion of the game is taken up watching people shoot free throws. Why does it matter why the person is shooting the FT?
It matters because normally the amount of FTs per game would decrease a lot...
It's been acknowledged by Sliver and many coaches that players are getting free attempts to score points and that they have game weaknesses that are being exploited as they should be. The only problem is how that's happening. If the FT shooter was a 90%er, he'd rack up a ton of points that way. You can still foul a guy instead of allowing him to shoot a three. You can still intentionally miss a FT to force the other team to go full court instead of getting it at the half court line (haven't seen that in a long time but still) and you can foul away from the ball to get a dead ball to change out players. No one seems to mind that. It's the free throws that bothers them and the fact that it happens over and over in sequence so a large portion of the game time is spent walking to the FT line and shooting FTs.
"People" doesn't mean everyone, just some. I doubt anyone likes watching people shoot free throws for whatever reason. Why is the intentional foul a worse reason than the "intentionally drawing the foul"?
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I don't like the intentional foul away from the ball. I think it's chickenshit and stupid most of the time, but I'd like to see it go away because it doesn't work, not because fans cry about it.
In that I fully agree but let's be honest it won't happen, having a deandre jordan for all his short comings is still valuable against most of the teams in the NBA... if all would exploit his weakness like the Spurs do, he would have his PT much reduced or he would have to work his ass off to play bb on the NBA.
So yeah intentional foul would "reward" some incompetent players like him but this kind of player is a minority anyway... and making 70% of his FTs plus next possession would continue to be better than just making 40% of them plus next possession.
Cry Havoc
03-14-2016, 03:26 PM
Now I share your opinion about if you can't shoot a FT, you should be exposed for this weakness but again if people want see basketball game being more fluid and not a FT contests it seems to me this is the only option.
Really? The only option?
How many big men in the NBA are worthy of hacking? 4? 6? And two of those are on the same team. So in reality you have MAYBE 5ish teams in the entire league that you can justify hacking on, and only in very limited circumstances.
Hack-a-Shaq is so overblown and it's largely a non-issue. The media likes to make it their cause because it's highly visible when it occurs and it usually favors teams who aren't the highlight reel teams (since they typically don't employ guys who are fucking awful at one of the core aspects of the game).
If the NBA wants to improve the flow of the game, they can either A) stop being so inconsistent with foul calls, so that players can actually adapt to the whistles, instead of calling touch fouls one second and allowing players to lay lumber on each other the next with no call, OR, they can simply lower the number of timeouts available to both teams. But that cuts into commercial revenue, so it's not, gonna, happen.
Preventing teams from calling timeouts with the ball in play is a small band-aid, but it won't drastically improve the game. Teams will still use all their timeouts in close games.
Cry Havoc
03-14-2016, 03:27 PM
It matters because normally the amount of FTs per game would decrease a lot...
A lot? By how much? I can't remember the last time the Spurs hacked a player who wasn't Deandre. So that's maybe what, 2 teams out of the entire league that we even think about hacking.
this other rule i dont get is the inbound pass and moving the ball pass half court
u have 5 seconds to inbound
u have 8 seconds to walk the ball up
say during the final 5 seconds u inbound but let the ball roll up the court without anyone touching it, shouldnt that be a 5second violation...
Yeah I didn't understand this one either. Since the clock doesn't start until another player touches the ball, it shouldn't really count as inbounded.
The time where it leaves the inbounders hand and touches the next player is like a limbo.
The ball must leave the inbounders hands before 5 seconds, and until it touches a different players hands it IS in limbo because it's still a dead ball situation.
The only way you could change that rule was if the clock started as soon as the inbounder was handed the ball. That would pretty much be pomegranate Mio.
whitemamba
03-14-2016, 04:25 PM
The ball must leave the inbounders hands before 5 seconds, and until it touches a different players hands it IS in limbo because it's still a dead ball situation.
The only way you could change that rule was if the clock started as soon as the inbounder was handed the ball. That would pretty much be pomegranate Mio.
shut up faggot, no one cares what you say.
shut up faggot, no one cares what you say.
Thanks for not caring by replying.
whitemamba
03-14-2016, 04:34 PM
Thanks for not caring by replying.
STFU faggot
STFU faggot
2 replies. Someone's caring.
point taken but still a bit extreme compared to instauring something that already exists like the notion of intentional
The foul already exists. The change would be no more extreme to give the ball and a point to a 3pt shooter out of bounds. If you removed free throws from the game completely I don't think fans would mind. No one likes watching them.
It matters because normally the amount of FTs per game would decrease a lot...
Of the top 6 players in FTA per game, only 1 shoots below 70%. Harden leads all FTA per game and shoots much higher than 70%. That means crowds are by and large watching James Harden at the FT line more than they are watching DeAndre Jordan or Howard or Drummond or any other low % FT shooter. And again, the stats don't lie.
Last year you had to go 9 deep to find one that shot less than 70%. I doubt anyone was running the hack-a-shaq on those guys. That means 8 other players on 8 different teams were forcing fans to watch a FT shooting contest much more often than any intentional fouling scheme was being run. Again, if it's about the FT shooting, it's all the same. It means that trying to get to the line is a much bigger game stopper than trying to put someone on the line.
In that I fully agree but let's be honest it won't happen, having a deandre jordan for all his short comings is still valuable against most of the teams in the NBA... if all would exploit his weakness like the Spurs do, he would have his PT much reduced or he would have to work his ass off to play bb on the NBA.
Sure it is. So why bail him out more by protecting him from his greatest weakness? All won't exploit his weakness. Most cannot wipe their own asses without Jerry Colangelo to tell them how. A few teams run that gimmick and it annoys fans who want to look up from their glittery phones now and then and see nothing but fast breaks and dunks. The best team should always be the one with the most exciting athletes. Cerebral game play needs to go away.
So yeah intentional foul would "reward" some incompetent players like him but this kind of player is a minority anyway... and making 70% of his FTs plus next possession would continue to be better than just making 40% of them plus next possession.
If he hit 70% he'd not be intentionally fouled away from the ball. If Shaq shot 70% he'd have 8 rings.
whitemamba
03-14-2016, 04:59 PM
2 replies. Someone's caring.
I wish i could understand stupid, you would make a lot more sense.
Really? The only option?
How many big men in the NBA are worthy of hacking? 4? 6? And two of those are on the same team. So in reality you have MAYBE 5ish teams in the entire league that you can justify hacking on, and only in very limited circumstances.
Hack-a-Shaq is so overblown and it's largely a non-issue. The media likes to make it their cause because it's highly visible when it occurs and it usually favors teams who aren't the highlight reel teams (since they typically don't employ guys who are fucking awful at one of the core aspects of the game).
If the NBA wants to improve the flow of the game, they can either A) stop being so inconsistent with foul calls, so that players can actually adapt to the whistles, instead of calling touch fouls one second and allowing players to lay lumber on each other the next with no call, OR, they can simply lower the number of timeouts available to both teams. But that cuts into commercial revenue, so it's not, gonna, happen.
Preventing teams from calling timeouts with the ball in play is a small band-aid, but it won't drastically improve the game. Teams will still use all their timeouts in close games.
In games that are basically already decided that still have to play out, the click-click-click-click crowd today with zero patience wants it to end now to get to the next thing. Real live events aren't "on demand" so fucking get over it and watch the game or don't (to them, not you).
I wish i could understand stupid, you would make a lot more sense.
Your 4-2 whiny bitch thread shows you understand it clearly.
whitemamba
03-14-2016, 05:08 PM
Your 4-2 whiny bitch thread shows you understand it clearly.
:cry faggot
:cry faggot
:lol still replying
Brazil
03-14-2016, 05:19 PM
A lot? By how much? I can't remember the last time the Spurs hacked a player who wasn't Deandre. So that's maybe what, 2 teams out of the entire league that we even think about hacking.
Cry, bro... I'm not talking exclusively about off the ball "hack a Shaq", I'm also talking about a defender grabbing the arm of a guy going at the rim for the easy lay up and I'm also talking about late game situations when a team down start fouling each possession to get a chance to come back... All those situations create yes a lot of FTs that would be eliminated with the notion of intentional
Brazil
03-14-2016, 05:31 PM
The foul already exists. The change would be no more extreme to give the ball and a point to a 3pt shooter out of bounds. If you removed free throws from the game completely I don't think fans would mind. No one likes watching them.
well I disagree in my view intentional fouling calling is much less extreme than giving 1 pt and ball back to a 3 pts shooter. In that case fouled or not you don't know what will be the outcome of the shot but still give a point ? at least with FTs you still need competence to make the FT and you need competence to entirely punish the offender by scoring on next possession.
Of the top 6 players in FTA per game, only 1 shoots below 70%. Harden leads all FTA per game and shoots much higher than 70%. That means crowds are by and large watching James Harden at the FT line more than they are watching DeAndre Jordan or Howard or Drummond or any other low % FT shooter. And again, the stats don't lie.
Last year you had to go 9 deep to find one that shot less than 70%. I doubt anyone was running the hack-a-shaq on those guys. That means 8 other players on 8 different teams were forcing fans to watch a FT shooting contest much more often than any intentional fouling scheme was being run. Again, if it's about the FT shooting, it's all the same. It means that trying to get to the line is a much bigger game stopper than trying to put someone on the line.
As I answered intentional foul would not be only on off the ball action to avoid "hack a". On a side note I dislike seeing Harden making FTs I rather see him finish his lay up and not be put at the FT line by an intentional foul of the defender.
Sure it is. So why bail him out more by protecting him from his greatest weakness? All won't exploit his weakness. Most cannot wipe their own asses without Jerry Colangelo to tell them how. A few teams run that gimmick and it annoys fans who want to look up from their glittery phones now and then and see nothing but fast breaks and dunks. The best team should always be the one with the most exciting athletes. Cerebral game play needs to go away.
If he hit 70% he'd not be intentionally fouled away from the ball. If Shaq shot 70% he'd have 8 rings.
Because you improve the game while it's true bailing out a hand of handicapped players that cannot convert a FT to save their life but it is, as you said, very marginal and few teams were exploiting anyway the hack a DeAndre.
Brazil
03-14-2016, 05:35 PM
Also, I obviously agree with the time outs reduction... dat would be a great measure to improve the flow of the game but it won't happen for the same reasons than NFL games are cut every 2 mn, money
Cry, bro... I'm not talking exclusively about off the ball "hack a Shaq", I'm also talking about a defender grabbing the arm of a guy going at the rim for the easy lay up and I'm also talking about late game situations when a team down start fouling each possession to get a chance to come back... All those situations create yes a lot of FTs that would be eliminated with the notion of intentional
What you're suggesting would basically create a "no defense" atmosphere. You'd have more FTs in that scenario than how it is now.
BG_Spurs_Fan
03-15-2016, 08:29 AM
Cry, bro... I'm not talking exclusively about off the ball "hack a Shaq", I'm also talking about a defender grabbing the arm of a guy going at the rim for the easy lay up and I'm also talking about late game situations when a team down start fouling each possession to get a chance to come back... All those situations create yes a lot of FTs that would be eliminated with the notion of intentional
So you want to see every player act like Harden on defense ( where's that epic Korver pic? ) when someone is attacking the rim in fear of being called for an intentional foul?
Also you'd rather watch a player hold the ball at the half line for 24 seconds with no intention to get a shot off when his team is ahead, but not intentional fouling at the end of games? Have I got it wrong? I think this would be incredibly awful.
The only thing I'd like to see changed would be for last second heaves to not be counted as a missed shot, just like shots after a foul aren't, unless they go in. Hate seeing players heave the ball half a second late intentionally so that they wouldn't hurt their stats. Even Spurs players, not named Manu, do it. It could also make for a few nice highlights.
Brazil
03-15-2016, 09:14 AM
What you're suggesting would basically create a "no defense" atmosphere. You'd have more FTs in that scenario than how it is now.
well no... I'm suggesting creating a clean defense atmosphere, it's not like the intentional notion does not exist anywhere... not sure why people are acting like this is not something already known and used.
Here is the FIBA understanding of this rule (from wiki)
FIBA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIBA) basketball rules have a similar foul called an unsportsmanlike foul, which is roughly equivalent to a flagrant type 1, with the addition that an unsportsmanlike foul can be called if a player fouls with no intention to play the ball (including excessive holding, shirt grabbing), as well as if a player fouls another player on a fast break from behind him. If a player commits a foul warranting immediate ejection from the game, the foul would be called as a disqualifying foul - similar to a flagrant 2. Two unsportsmanlike fouls lead to automatic ejection, similar to the NBA.
The penalty for an unsportsmanlike or disqualifying foul is two free throws and possession at midcourt for the opposing team
In FIBA the notion of "no defense" does not exist.
I'm not advocating to transform NBA into FIBA, I personally the 4 quarters, the short shot clock and stuff, I'm just saying if one wants to get more fluidity and less FTs you can test the implementation of the "intentional" ala FIBA or a twisted version of it.
Brazil
03-15-2016, 09:24 AM
So you want to see every player act like Harden on defense ( where's that epic Korver pic? ) when someone is attacking the rim in fear of being called for an intentional foul?
No. I want the defender play the ball not the player and I'd rather see Harden make his lay up than shooting 15 FTs per game that bore the shit out of me.
Also you'd rather watch a player hold the ball at the half line for 24 seconds with no intention to get a shot off when his team is ahead, but not intentional fouling at the end of games? Have I got it wrong? I think this would be incredibly awful.
That's a legit concern I agree. Now this rule does not prevent the defense from attacking the ball, in FIBA this situation does not exist and the number of calls are not excessive. In the spirit if you play the ball you are not called for intentional foul, you are called for that if you foul off the ball or you grad a harm, a shirt to prevent an easy two. What you would see in late game situation is full court press with action to trap the ball handler, idea here is to steal the ball not send the dude to the line waiting for a miss. Now from this agressive defense on the ball the result can be a regular foul because there is no unsportsmanlike conduct.
The only thing I'd like to see changed would be for last second heaves to not be counted as a missed shot, just like shots after a foul aren't, unless they go in. Hate seeing players heave the ball half a second late intentionally so that they wouldn't hurt their stats. Even Spurs players, not named Manu, do it. It could also make for a few nice highlights.
not a bad idea indeed
well no... I'm suggesting creating a clean defense atmosphere, it's not like the intentional notion does not exist anywhere... not sure why people are acting like this is not something already known and used.
Here is the FIBA understanding of this rule (from wiki)
FIBA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIBA) basketball rules have a similar foul called an unsportsmanlike foul, which is roughly equivalent to a flagrant type 1, with the addition that an unsportsmanlike foul can be called if a player fouls with no intention to play the ball (including excessive holding, shirt grabbing), as well as if a player fouls another player on a fast break from behind him. If a player commits a foul warranting immediate ejection from the game, the foul would be called as a disqualifying foul - similar to a flagrant 2. Two unsportsmanlike fouls lead to automatic ejection, similar to the NBA.
The penalty for an unsportsmanlike or disqualifying foul is two free throws and possession at midcourt for the opposing team
In FIBA the notion of "no defense" does not exist.
I'm not advocating to transform NBA into FIBA, I personally the 4 quarters, the short shot clock and stuff, I'm just saying if one wants to get more fluidity and less FTs you can test the implementation of the "intentional" ala FIBA or a twisted version of it.
There's no such as "clean defense". It's called "traffic cone". You don't grab, pull, push, hinder and you always only go for the ball in a very obvious manner. Otherwise the refs have the ability to say "no you didn't" and send someone not only to the FT line but also give them the ball out of bounds. How would that, compared to the few instances of hack-a-monkey not result in more FTA across the league?
lefty
03-15-2016, 12:27 PM
Bring back hand checking and remove defensive 3 second violation imo
Brazil
03-15-2016, 01:02 PM
There's no such as "clean defense". It's called "traffic cone". You don't grab, pull, push, hinder and you always only go for the ball in a very obvious manner. Otherwise the refs have the ability to say "no you didn't" and send someone not only to the FT line but also give them the ball out of bounds. How would that, compared to the few instances of hack-a-monkey not result in more FTA across the league?
Not sure on what ground you are making assumptions like traffic cone and more FTAs... it is simply not true, this notion of intentional is not new and is in use... where it is used defenders are not becoming traffic cone and FTAs are not higher
Brazil
03-15-2016, 01:03 PM
Bring back hand checking and remove defensive 3 second violation imo
let's no be that radical tbh.... 3 second violation is a good rule imho
Cry Havoc
03-15-2016, 01:12 PM
Not sure on what ground you are making assumptions like traffic cone and more FTAs... it is simply not true, this notion of intentional is not new and is in use... where it is used defenders are not becoming traffic cone and FTAs are not higher
Where it is used there is actually a slower pace of game. FIBA is somewhere between NCAA and the NBA. I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it would work in the NBA. The game is completely different.
Brazil
03-15-2016, 01:52 PM
Where it is used there is actually a slower pace of game. FIBA is somewhere between NCAA and the NBA. I understand the point you're trying to make, I just don't think it would work in the NBA. The game is completely different.
NBA has a different format and game is different, true... it does not mean it would not work or at least it is not worth the try.
NCAA is slower mostly because of the shot clock and coaches usually like to play half court basket also because they have 10 sec to bring the ball to front court and not 8 as per NBA and FIBA rules
For FIBA since they implemented the 24 sec and the 8 sec I don't see a major difference in terms of pace tbh... even though you could argue European teams usually use most of the shot clock and NBA teams are pulling the trigger a bit sooner (to be fair here I don't have stat or data to back up that claim), lower scoring is mainly due to the fact FIBA is playing 8 minutes less than NBA and you have less time outs. I believe, per 48, numbers are quite similar in fact.
To be sure nothing better than testing it, as far as I know D League rules are copy paste of NBA rules, that's a pretty nice place to start tbh...
Not sure on what ground you are making assumptions like traffic cone and more FTAs... it is simply not true, this notion of intentional is not new and is in use... where it is used defenders are not becoming traffic cone and FTAs are not higher
Let's make this simple:
What's the issue?
Me: Too much game time spent shooting free throws
You:
What's the goal?
Me: Fewer FTA in a game
You:
How would your proposition achieve that goal?
Me: Totally eliminate FT shooting
You:
lefty
03-15-2016, 02:35 PM
let's no be that radical tbh.... 3 second violation is a good rule imho
no it's fucking gay
It didn't bother perimeter players back then, the top dogs always found a way inside
So much faggotry today, le'ts allow easy penetrations for today's NBA (lol I said today's NBA) perimeters players
Brazil
03-15-2016, 03:22 PM
Let's make this simple:
What's the issue?
Me: Too much game time spent shooting free throws
You:
What's the goal?
Me: Fewer FTA in a game
You:
How would your proposition achieve that goal?
Me: Totally eliminate FT shooting
You:
not sure what you are trying to achieve with this post tbh... I'm pretty sure everybody understood what suggestion I'm making to improve flow of the game, you counter argue with stuff like it will increase FTA or defense would disappear, arguments that don't make sense for me as you can just watch and see where it is used those two things don't exist. smh
now where did you ever mention you suggest to eliminate FT shooting, how this would work ?
but to play your game
What's the issue?
You: Too much game time spent shooting free throws
Me: Flow of the game constantly interrupted by FTAs
pretty much the same
What's the goal?
Me: Fewer FTA in a game
You: Fewer FTA in a gmae
How would your proposition achieve that goal?
You: Totally eliminate FT shooting
Me: Implement intentional foul ala FIBA
feeling better ?
Brazil
03-15-2016, 03:24 PM
no it's fucking gay
It didn't bother perimeter players back then, the top dogs always found a way inside
So much faggotry today, le'ts allow easy penetrations for today's NBA (lol I said today's NBA) perimeters players
:lol I can respect that point of view... dat good ugly nba was cool
lefty
03-15-2016, 03:34 PM
:lol I can respect that point of view... dat good ugly nba was cool
It was ugly but it was intenese tbh
Today's NBA is more like NBA Jam
Darth_Pelican
03-15-2016, 03:43 PM
It was ugly but it was intenese tbh
Today's NBA is more like NBA Jam
http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn200/nbacardDOTnet/zz%20NBA%20Photo%20Gallery/z%20NBA%20Video%20n%20Game%20Title/NBA%20Old%20Game/capture/NBA%20Jam/shawn-kemp-on-fire-charles-barkley.gif
not sure what you are trying to achieve with this post tbh... I'm pretty sure everybody understood what suggestion I'm making to improve flow of the game, you counter argue with stuff like it will increase FTA or defense would disappear, arguments that don't make sense for me as you can just watch and see where it is used those two things don't exist. smh
now where did you ever mention you suggest to eliminate FT shooting, how this would work ?
Let's just get rid of the free throw. Problem solved. If you get fouled while shooting, you get 1 point and the ball out of bounds. That fixes everything and speeds the game up. If you're shooting a 3, too fucking bad. You get 1 point and the ball out of bounds.
but to play your game
What's the issue?
You: Too much game time spent shooting free throws
Me: Flow of the game constantly interrupted by FTAs
pretty much the same
What's the goal?
Me: Fewer FTA in a game
You: Fewer FTA in a gmae
How would your proposition achieve that goal?
You: Totally eliminate FT shooting
Me: Implement intentional foul ala FIBA
feeling better ?
Now explain how the inentional foul rule you suggest would lead to fewer FTA in a game. The punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTA? Oh and you give them the ball too. You're trying to find a deterrent, but that rule isn't the deterrent, it's just another way to get free throws and the ball. A deterrent is when the big can hit his FTA. That would stop it right in its tracks, as evidenced by the fact that only 5 or so guys have any issues with it. So you think stopping 5 or so teams from having some nights where they shoot more FTs because of intentional fouling would outweigh the freethrow attempts you'd install by saying free throws and the ball? That just gives the same team another chance to do the same play and get 2 free throws and the ball again.
With very tall players, you're never making a play at the ball, always the player.
Brazil
03-15-2016, 04:48 PM
Now explain how the inentional foul rule you suggest would lead to fewer FTA in a game. The punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTA? Oh and you give them the ball too. You're trying to find a deterrent, but that rule isn't the deterrent, it's just another way to get free throws and the ball. A deterrent is when the big can hit his FTA. That would stop it right in its tracks, as evidenced by the fact that only 5 or so guys have any issues with it. So you think stopping 5 or so teams from having some nights where they shoot more FTs because of intentional fouling would outweigh the freethrow attempts you'd install by saying free throws and the ball? That just gives the same team another chance to do the same play and get 2 free throws and the ball again.
With very tall players, you're never making a play at the ball, always the player.
when you said let's just get rid of FTs I obviously thought you were pushing an extreme to back up your line of thought. At the beginning you were advocating that a player should be able to make his FTs... problem solved. It solved the hack a off the ball but it is marginal if goal is to improve flow of the game.
Then you are losing me on the punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTAs.... Today a foul leads to FT intentional or not or an inbound, inbound or FTA stop the action. If you give back the ball to the fouled team you oblige defense to defend the ball and not the player especially if after two intentionals a player is out of the game... this should result in cleaner defense = less fouls = less FTAs. I don't see in what universe this would increase number of FTs.
The unsportsmanlike foul or intentional whatever you call it is not limited to off the ball action. This rule is not there just to take care of the 6 bigs who cannot shoot FTs and avoid the two coaches using a hack a, it is also to prevent the arm grabbing avoiding easy lay up and FTs contest at the end of the game.
With very tall players you fight for keeping him back at the basket, to steal when he puts ball on the floor etc... in fiba basketball very tall players are defended normally no more no less than nba... you just don't hack them off the ball or grab their shirt, arm etc.. to prevent a lay up.
when you said let's just get rid of FTs I obviously thought you were pushing an extreme to back up your line of thought. At the beginning you were advocating that a player should be able to make his FTs... problem solved. It solved the hack a off the ball but it is marginal if goal is to improve flow of the game.
The flow of the game wasn't the "goal" though. Fewer FTA was the goal. You even said so yourself.
Then you are losing me on the punishment for intentionally fouling is what if not more FTAs.... Today a foul leads to FT intentional or not or an inbound, inbound or FTA stop the action. If you give back the ball to the fouled team you oblige defense to defend the ball and not the player especially if after two intentionals a player is out of the game... this should result in cleaner defense = less fouls = less FTAs. I don't see in what universe this would increase number of FTs.
You're using a deterrent or an incentive, not a rule, to hope the flow of the game changes. The rule would, by definition, result in FTA if violated. Creating a rule that puts a player on the line to reduce FTA doesn't seem like a good solution. It seems like you're focused on the "flow" aspect but attacking the "FTA" aspect. If FTA is hindering the flow, then all FTA are hindering the flow. Get rid of FTA. Improve the flow as much as possible. You just want to deter certain fouls that lead to FTA.
The unsportsmanlike foul or intentional whatever you call it is not limited to off the ball action. This rule is not there just to take care of the 6 bigs who cannot shoot FTs and avoid the two coaches using a hack a, it is also to prevent the arm grabbing avoiding easy lay up and FTs contest at the end of the game.
Which are part and parcel of denying easy points. The other side of that is being a traffic cone.
It absolutely is only about those few who cannot hit the FT. We wouldn't be having a discussion about it otherwise.
With very tall players you fight for keeping him back at the basket, to steal when he puts ball on the floor etc... in fiba basketball very tall players are defended normally no more no less than nba... you just don't hack them off the ball or grab their shirt, arm etc.. to prevent a lay up.
You keep referring to FIBA but then claim you're not trying to create a FIBA environment. Seems like you are. The NBA and FIBA are two different animals. Are you for making goaltending legal?
Brazil
03-15-2016, 06:01 PM
The flow of the game wasn't the "goal" though. Fewer FTA was the goal. You even said so yourself.
Discussion started about how get a game more fluid than today... fewer FTA or inbounds are a way to achieve that knowing NBA won't cut time outs and shit for economical reason.
[...] You just want to deter certain fouls that lead to FTA.
yes exactly
Which are part and parcel of denying easy points. The other side of that is being a traffic cone.
It absolutely is only about those few who cannot hit the FT. We wouldn't be having a discussion about it otherwise.
You keep referring to FIBA but then claim you're not trying to create a FIBA environment. Seems like you are. The NBA and FIBA are two different animals. Are you for making goaltending legal?
It is not only about those calls, it is also about the intentional foul to prevent a basket and the late fourth quarter FTs contest. The "hack a" is marginal in this discussion.
You are right to point out what seems to be a paradox but I'm referring to FIBA to illustrate it is doable and don't transform defenders into cones. Now I'm not in favor of 4 quarters of 10, of 3 pts line closer, of smaller basketball court or even goaltending. I just think the unsportsmanlike foul rule used in FIBA could be a good option to reduce the number of FTAs and improve the flow of a game already sliced by one big half time and 8 long time outs, no need to add 2/3 min of hack a, 10 FTAs to prevent easy lay ups and again some FTAs at the end of the game when a team foul off the ball.
Not a big deal, just a suggestion worth imo to experiment
Discussion started about how get a game more fluid than today... fewer FTA or inbounds are a way to achieve that knowing NBA won't cut time outs and shit for economical reason.
Then your goal is a more fluid game, not necessarily fewer FTAs.
yes exactly
Which is why I stated that any FTA is just as annoying as any other FTA. Game situation is different. If you are down one with 1 second to go, you want to shoot that FT. It's not annoying to watch that. It's just as annoying to watch James Harden take 20FTA as it is to watch Jordan take them. Your rule proposal only really addresses the ones that Jordan would be taking most of the time. That's because you think Harden's FTs come in the flow of the game and they are stoppages just like anything else. If Jordan drove through traffic and flailed his arms to get to the line, it would be a non-issue for those opposed to intentional fouling who use "game flow" as a reason.
It is not only about those calls, it is also about the intentional foul to prevent a basket and the late fourth quarter FTs contest. The "hack a" is marginal in this discussion.
Every sport has rules the opposing side will use in desperate moments. Walking a good hitter, for example, is a concession you make as a gamble. You give a guy a free base, just like you give a guy in the NBA a free throw or two. If the guy you put on base is dangerous to you, but the next batter is more likely to hit into a double play or just an out, you're safer to not pitch to the slugger and instead go with the higher percentage play. In football, players use up the play clock and call a timeout with 1 second remaining. They will take an intentional pass interference before allowing a touchdown. They will taking a holding penalty over a QB sack. The NBA is no different. You're wanting to find ways to nullify the defense and just have SSOL style play where no real tactics exist other than raising a hand. You can no longer hand check, can't be in the paint more than 3 seconds, can't moving screen... it goes on and on. I personally don't want to see a 3pt shooting league where no one ever attacks the rim, but I also don't want a bunch of James Harden type defenders who just hope they can get it back at the other end. I don't want to see 40pt quarters being more common than not.
You are right to point out what seems to be a paradox but I'm referring to FIBA to illustrate it is doable and don't transform defenders into cones. Now I'm not in favor of 4 quarters of 10, of 3 pts line closer, of smaller basketball court or even goaltending. I just think the unsportsmanlike foul rule used in FIBA could be a good option to reduce the number of FTAs and improve the flow of a game already sliced by one big half time and 8 long time outs, no need to add 2/3 min of hack a, 10 FTAs to prevent easy lay ups and again some FTAs at the end of the game when a team foul off the ball.
Not a big deal, just a suggestion worth imo to experiment
But if you transform the NBA using FIBA as a template, you're creating FIBA 2.0. FIBA isn't that great.
Brazil
03-15-2016, 06:39 PM
But if you transform the NBA using FIBA as a template, you're creating FIBA 2.0. FIBA isn't that great.
fair enough
I just think FIBA rules about fouling make more sense to me than actual NBA. I don't like the "Oh you've blown me out on defense so I will grab your arm to make sure you won't have the easy lay up" it is rewarding bad defense and penalizing good offense and I don't either like the "1 mn left in the fourth we are trailing by 4, let's foul those dudes and hope they miss and get a miracle 3 somewhere" taking fucking forever to finish the game. It is just bad logic to me and a flow killer.
fair enough
I just think FIBA rules about fouling make more sense to me than actual NBA. I don't like the "Oh you've blown me out on defense so I will grab your arm to make sure you won't have the easy lay up" it is rewarding bad defense and penalizing good offense and I don't either like the "1 mn left in the fourth we are trailing by 4, let's foul those dudes and hope they miss and get a miracle 3 somewhere" taking fucking forever to finish the game. It is just bad logic to me and a flow killer.
You grab that person more than a couple times and you're in foul trouble. There are checks and balances to prevent it from becoming epidemic.
Spurtacular
03-15-2016, 11:07 PM
apalisoc_9 : I'm a dumbass attention whore"
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.