NBA: why doesnt the NBA allow the game to flow after a 24 second shot clock?

[Brazil]

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 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.

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]

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 cir stances.

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 ing 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]

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.

[UZER]

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]

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 got, no one cares what you say.

[UZER]

shut up got, no one cares what you say.

Thanks for not caring by replying.

[whitemamba]

Thanks for not caring by replying.

STFU got

[UZER]

STFU got

2 replies. Someone's caring.

[DMC]

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]

2 replies. Someone's caring.

I wish i could understand stupid, you would make a lot more sense.

[DMC]

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 cir stances.

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 ing 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 ing get over it and watch the game or don't (to them, not you).

[UZER]

I wish i could understand stupid, you would make a lot more sense.

Your 4-2 whiny thread shows you understand it clearly.

[whitemamba]

Your 4-2 whiny thread shows you understand it clearly.

got

[UZER]

got

still replying

[Brazil]

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]

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]

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

[DMC]

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]

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]

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 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]

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 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

[DMC]

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 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]

Bring back hand checking and remove defensive 3 second violation imo

[Brazil]

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]

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