Reply With Quote
lol at thinking the integrity of the game matters to the NBA.
i do agree with your main point 100% though.
Intentional Fouls count as 2 fouls.
lol at thinking the integrity of the game matters to the NBA.
i do agree with your main point 100% though.
I have another idea...If you are more than 7 feet tall, you cant guard a 6 feet player, so if he comes running to you, you have to move...
Thats a great idea, some cant shoot FTs, other are short...balance!!!
The problem with big punishment, is having refs call it. you need to account for refs biases, the bigger the punishment the less likely refs will call it. You will also see teams getting more savvy about it and doing more flop type fouls.
you Sliver and yo broadcast money
If you can't hit a free throw you aint
Unbelievable that the NBA wants to reward three lazy ass players. I hope the owners shoot it down.
Well what do you expect with the whiny little JVG moaning incessantly about it each and every game he telecasts. , I almost wanted them to change the rules just so he'd STFU.
It's not about rewarding lazy ass players. It's more about forcing teams to play basketball.
Going up to a player that's nowhere near the basketball, nowhere near the action to stop play and turning the game into a free throw shooting contest is not basketball.
Any rules changes should only specifically address the away from the ball fouls. It doesn't completely eliminate a hack-a-player strategy. If a team is in the bonus and they have a weak free throw shooter, foul him as many times as you want as long as he's in the play, with the ball, attempting to rebound, setting screens. Force him to shoot free throws as much as you want as long as it's in the flow of the game, part of the action. Just eliminate the away from the action fouls.
That's not rewarding lazy ass players. They will still have to shoot free throws. It's forcing teams to play basketball in order to use the strategy.
today's NBA
Dont put more guessing of intent on the officials. These ers can't even get blatant nut shots right.
Don't start that officiating . It's Friday, I'm in a good mood. Don't spoil it, Ooze.
You were celebrating their
Yes. That means if you can't stop someone like Drummond from dunking on your grill, tough tie. Be lucky Silver wasn't in office from 1996-2004
Hack-a-Shaq was chicken , just like DNP-CDs Pop also employs. Those DNPs cost you the OKC series I said
What if we just changed the rule to make all fouls go against the current ball handler?
Hack....the foul is meant to stop current offense...so current ball handler is the best choice to shoot
Screen.....the ball handler is initiating the action, fouling the screen man is pretty much the same as fouling the shooter, you are trying to disrupt a play not a player
Rebounds....foul is on the ball handler at that moment, so the bigs would shoot here. Fighting for position is a basketball play so we shouldn't change these fouls. Maybe just remove rebounding fouls from ever being shooting fouls (possession only) is the answer.
I like this rule because refs don't have to judge intent. They have to judge whether the foul taker was the ball handler or initiating a play like a screen our drive.
The only real grey area there is if you foul fighting for rebound space while the offense is making a move
Still nothing compared to multi year tank, sorryHack-a-Shaq was chicken , just like DNP-CDs Pop also employs. Those DNPs cost you the OKC series I said
Tanking led to 4.61 Spur les.
Have you seen the playoffs this year?
Multiple bad calls in the clutch of the Spurs/Thunder series. Players allowed to push opponents from out of bounds.
Draymond allowed to push, kick, and trip anybody he wants with no repercussion, while lesser players (Jones) catch suspensions for less.
The integrity of the game is already ed.
There are two problems with it:
1) Its completely subjective as to whether or not its intentional
2) Its using a loophole in the rule book to penalize the other team rather than play the sport
The NFL has plenty rules like this so they allow teams to DECLINE the penalty. This is all the league has to do. If you get fouled off the ball and they over the limit, accept or decline the penalty.
I don't mind the suggestion that a team decline the free throws and be able to just take it out of bounds.
But I'd just prefer that when an away from the ball / action foul be made, anyone on the team can shoot the free throws. No other changes, no harsher penalties. Just anyone on the court for the team in the bonus can shoot the free throws. That's the only change.
It doesn't prevent the hack-a-player strategy. But it also forces a team trying to implement the strategy to do it within the parameters and confines of actual basketball play. That's the only thing I would prefer to see if teams want to use the strategy. Do it while playing basketball.
why not just make revisions? teams have options to put their preferred player on the line when intentional fouls are committed on those players who doesn't have possession of the ball?
It doesn't matter how it ends up, teams will use officiating against the other team at every opportunity and the game will stop because of it.
Of course it rewards lazy players. Jordan's currently an enormous offensive liability to his team because he doesn't care enough to learn to shoot free throws at a 50% clip. Artificially get rid of that liability through the rules change and he's a top 10 player.
Player with the ball takes the freethrows. That way if Jordan has the ball you can foul someone else and force him to the line, but you cannot force him to the line if he doesn't have the ball.
So hammer Jordan on screens so the ref can see it and get called for a flagrant? Trip him every time down the floor? Seems like a great way to have a ton of fights started, and then the refs will have to protect him every single game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
