Reply With Quote
There's got to be a better way to decide games than the "extend the last two mins into 20" parade from stripe to stripe.
I meant when i'm an outside viewer, i find it entertaining. It's funny.
There's got to be a better way to decide games than the "extend the last two mins into 20" parade from stripe to stripe.
So long as it don't hurt Spurs, eh?
Being defunct one skill is enough to warrant justification.
I direct you to any 20% jump shooter. They're not around too often even though they can dribble, pass, dunk. When you have guys who can't shoot, you let them shoot. When you have guys who can't dribble, you man up and force the drive. You force your opponent into a weakness. It's called strategy.
Comparing strategy to a free throw contest is completely inaccurate.
For off-the-ball fouls when a team is over the limit, the team fouled has option to take the free throws or the ball out of bounds.
If a player HAS the ball and is fouled, he still has shoot free throws.
Problem solved.
Players still have to be able to make free throws or their teammates can never pass them the ball but it removes the ridiculous hacking that defensive Spurs fans defend simply because their coach chooses to do it.
Really? Link? It's going to be pretty funny watching DJ shoot an inordinate amount of FTs his first game at Dallas.
They all do it.
You cannot have the choice, else a foul away from the ball on Curry means two FTs, but on Jordan means ball out of bounds. Can't be that way.
You're getting the clock stopped with a chance to score points and you about it? How far down the ladder do you think your ty teams are that you have to lobby for rule changes under the guise of "keeping it interesting"? Who wants to see two small market teams in the Finals? Why not make it so that small market teams have to win 5 of 7 while the popular teams only have to win 3 of 7? That would keep the majority of NBA fans more entertained.
Yes it can. If a team fouls off the ball and is over the limit, the team fouled can take the free throws (as the rule is now) or simply take it out of bounds.
The NFL gives teams the exact same "option" to accept a penalty for the exact same reason. There are loopholes in the rule book that can be exploited just like "hack-a-shaq" so they give teams the option to simply not accept the penalty.
The rest of your post is just the nonsense of a defensive spurs fan. Teams fouling each other as soon as the ball is inbounded to try and exploit a loophole is bad for the game no matter who your coach is. Grow up.
Bingo. Obviously "Hack-a" has come more into light because Pop made it vogue and more teams are utilizing the strategy now. But I don't see how it's any different from end-of-game situations where intentional fouls are the accepted norm.
The system is fine as it is. Either be a detriment to your team, or learn how to shoot a goddamn free throw. The league shouldn't be hiding player deficiencies for the sake of entertainment. This is basketball, not WWE.
As if theres ever going to be a day in which we dont have players that are, despite thousands of hours of practice, bad free throw shooters. We should just say "learn to shoot free throws" as if teams havent spent millions upon millions of dollars on shooting coaches and countless hours practicing.
We should be idealistic and accept the being passed on as "basketball" because thats what the Spurs like to do.
No thanks.
It must suck to be a Spurs fan and have to pretend that we dont all watch sports for "entertainment".
It was one son, come on, I know you have watched the end of that game more than any Spurs fan here.
LOL got still butthurt over the mid 2000s telling people to grow up.
Yes, we all watch basketball for entertainment. That's because we enjoy the compe ion for what it is, and that is dictated by rules that have mostly been in place for over 100 years.
Basketball has been an ins ution for far longer than these sensationalized TV markets. , when it was invented in 1891, the first television was still three decades off. The game been played on every level, from prep school to college to international to NBA, and aside from some variations, the main rules have stayed the same. None of those other leagues would ever consider watering down the game for the sake of ratings, especially rating that are only lining the pockets of people who are already millionaires. If you want basketball to be pure entertainment, go watch a Globetrotters game.
But I don't want to watch free throws.
It must suck to be a Suns fan and...well...have to be a Suns fan.
Not really, Bum. I saw the highlight reel and the 20something seconds of the Spur breakdown.
The rule is that if your team commits a foul more than five times in a quarter, the other team is rewarded with free throws. The rule wasnt invented 100 years ago. I dont know when it was invented. The rule exists to discourage teams from fouling and slowing the game down. The Spurs try to exploit this rule rather than follow the spirit of it.Yes, we all watch basketball for entertainment. That's because we enjoy the compe ion for what it is, and that is dictated by rules that have mostly been in place for over 100 years.
Basketball has been an ins ution for far longer than these sensationalized TV markets. , when it was invented in 1891, the first television was still three decades off. The game been played on every level, from prep school to college to international to NBA, and aside from some variations, the main rules have stayed the same. None of those other leagues would ever consider watering down the game for the sake of ratings, especially rating that are only lining the pockets of people who are already millionaires. If you want basketball to be pure entertainment, go watch a Globetrotters game.
It must suck to be a Suns fan and...well...have to be a Suns fan.
The SAME THING happens in the NFL. This is WHY they give teams the option to decline penalties. Otherwise, teams would hit the quarterback after he made a long pass since roughing the passer might result in a better defensive field position than if the catch was made etc.
Poor, poor defensive spurs fans.
The NFL solved this problem a long time ago:
Spurs fan, please explain why NFL allows teams to decline penalties but the NBA should make the players "play by the rules" regardless of loopholes.The referee then confers with the offended team's on-field captain to find out whether the offended team would rather decline the penalty and take the result of the play. In certain situations, the result of the play may be more advantageous to the offended team, especially, for example, if time is running out in the half and a 7-yard gain is a better option than a 5-yard penalty. However, there are certain scenarios where the referee may not have to confer with the team captain because the enforcement is entirely obvious (such as a false start foul or other penalties called prior to the snap) or when the choice is fairly obvious (such as when the defense commits a foul during a play in which the offense scores a touchdown).
If a guy has the ball, by all means, foul him and make him shoot free throws. But off-the-ball fouls in the penalty should simply result in an option to shoot free throws.
Problem solved.
I understand the entertainment argument, but it's pretty strange to change a rule to cover the deficiencies of a small portion of the league's players, tbh..are we going to change the rule on defending players that can't shoot 3s, too?
There is no way to make players HAVE to shoot three pointers so your argument is moot.I understand the entertainment argument, but it's pretty strange to change a rule to cover the deficiencies of a small portion of the league's players, tbh
And its not covering the deficiencies of a player when they have to shoot free throws if theyre fouled with the ball.
No. Argument by repe ion doesn't make your point more valid. As it is now, the team fouled doesn't have the choice, so it's not "can take the free throws". It's "must take the free throws". There's a huge difference.
Apples vs oranges (no surprise here, you're one of the stupidest mother ers ever to post here). One is to prevent the fouled team from being penalized, the other would be to keep bad free throw shooters protected against being forced to the line.The NFL gives teams the exact same "option" to accept a penalty for the exact same reason. There are loopholes in the rule book that can be exploited just like "hack-a-shaq" so they give teams the option to simply not accept the penalty.
You're a got. Everything you say is questionable at best. You're also the most transparent troll here, got semi-auto revolver boy.The rest of your post is just the nonsense of a defensive spurs fan. Teams fouling each other as soon as the ball is inbounded to try and exploit a loophole is bad for the game no matter who your coach is. Grow up.
Changing this rule would be a massive mistake. Sends an absolutely terrible message to players and fans alike. I don't understand why so many people seem to support this rule change.
A. They have a superficial understanding of the game
B. They prefer monkey ball over basketball
C. Everything is boring except highlight dunks and blocks that don't lead to turnovers because the ball ends up in the upper level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
