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 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.
because it's an infraction.
/thread
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.
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 ty one.
set a minimum required FT% for players
Set a minimum dunk:layup ratio also
sure, but this is something that can be singled out easily, IMo,
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...
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.
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.
If you want to improve flow of the game, ins ute 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?
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
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 ty 3pt shooter wide open and doubling someone else.
The league needs to only consider if the act is in the spirit of compe ion 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.
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 in' about them NOT calling the violation.
Not if it's an air ball
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 senseThe 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 in' about them NOT calling the violation.
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 compe ion 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.
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 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 ins ute 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 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 ing 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 ing 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.
Last edited by DMC; 03-14-2016 at 10:43 AM.
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.
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.
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.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 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'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.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.
"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"?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.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, I don't like the intentional foul away from the ball. I think it's chicken 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
