Reply With Quote
The 90s had more ty free throw shooter.
Basketball needs to progress. It needs to constantly progress. I dont mind the move at all.
90s basketball fans not seeing the logic.
It actually worked against his team in 08, the only time it ever didNaturally.
The 90s had more ty free throw shooter.
Basketball needs to progress. It needs to constantly progress. I dont mind the move at all.
90s basketball fans not seeing the logic.
No it's stupid. You don't get the choice if you foul on the ball, why would you get it for fouling off the ball? In the NFL teams get penalized. In the NBA a player gets penalized. You can't just issue the foul and say "no we don't want the FTs, we want the ball out of bounds". It would be almost worse, because now you're forced to inbounds the ball instead of just shooting FTs.
Intentional fouls should be treated as flagrant. They aren't plays on the ball. They don't have to be aggressive, just intentional fouls. Grabbing someone while they are running or dribbling needs to be banned. If a guy gets out on a break you better catch him, you cannot just grab him and stop the break by taking a foul. I know it's strategic but so is flopping and that's been banned (sort of).
So no intentional fouls, because the concept of a foul is that you interfered with the shooter or you took a charge or you run someone over, set an illegal screen and such. Grabbing should be 2 shots and the ball. You want to stop the break, ok, you put the guy on the line. No clear path needed.
If you do that you can ignore the ty FT shooting aspect. All intentional fouls are 2 shots and the ball.
No, this is a regressive move. It has more to do with entertaining fans than actually improving the game. It will also hurt player development in that area.The 90s had more ty free throw shooter.
Basketball needs to progress. It needs to constantly progress. I dont mind the move at all.
90s basketball fans not seeing the logic.
Take Tiago. A ty free-throw shooter when he first joined the Spurs. He was often a hack-a target for opposing teams. What did he do? Did he play around on twitter with teenage girls? Did he renege on verbal commitments and cause an off-season circus? No. He went to work and became a good FT shooter.
And improving that area improved his overall game since he was no longer a liability at the line, meaning the Spurs could feature him in the offense more.
Yeah, I don't like the way it slows the game, but I'm more against babying the Dwights and DeMonkeys of the league.
Changing the rule on away from the ball / away from the action fouls is not rewarding or protecting lazy players. I don't know why that keeps popping up as an argument. Teams can still send ty free throw shooters to the free throw line. A rule change is forcing teams to play basketball in order to use the strategy. Otherwise, no rule change is actually rewarding lazy teams that don't want to actually play basketball in order to implement a strategy to exploit a weakness of the other team. It's a way for a team to get a cheap way to get an advantage without much risk or downside. A rule change would force teams to foul within the context of playing the game, with the regular rotation players.
What kind of skill or talent or genius strategy does it take for a coach to send the 13th or 14th player on his bench into the game, while the ball is being inbounded in the backcourt, to go run over to a bad free throw shooter standing still 50, 60 feet away from the ball and hug him and lightly smack him on the chest to indicate foul? What skill is involved in that? A rule change prevents that. A rule change makes you actually have to foul a player while you're playing basketball in order to send him to the line.
It's not about protecting or rewarding lazy players who can't shoot. It's about having to actually play the game in order to use the strategy.
Play basketball.
By this logic, then intentional fouling toward the end of the game when facing a deficit should also see a rule change.
You're not "playing basketball," using that strategy, since you're not defending the player or his team within the context of the game. You're simply lightly touching him when he receives the ball and hoping he misses at the line. Where's the skill in that? No defense is being played. It's just one team hoping to get lucky.
But I know you wouldn't be in favor of such a rule change because that aspect of the game is "entertaining," (i.e. late game chokes at the line that lead to improbable comebacks).
That's where the outcry against hack-a comes from. Not from some defense of game integrity, but because it isn't entertaining to watch.
Want hack-a to stop? Tell these players to learn FTs. That said, if you do support a rule change in both instances, then I know you're about game integrity rather than just selectively picking problems with the game you don't like.
you are fouling one of four inboundees It's a fiction, but all four guys are all equal involved. So you can say it is a basketball move when you foul on an inbound since technically the inbounding team can attempt a pass to any person without notice. Now in reality it's pretty easy to spot screeners and such, but screens are basketball moves.
inbounding and rebounding are both chaotic situations. It's easy to just tell the refs everyone is the dominant ball handler. The rule change only needs to apply to the back court and perimeter.
Teams can still foul bigs in the paint intentionally, but the offense will sniff this out and chuck up shots. The rules would then reward an aggressive offense over a hack defense by giving the FT appoints tot the shooter.
Part of the issue is that maybe we should just move to a game in which bigs are forbidden from shooting. The league would probably survive and we'd get better bigs since the need less skills and certainly wouldn't need skills meant for a guard.
Make it more like WWE were the biggest guys get paid for acting like they are playing hard defense, but without the hard defense. professional heels, they could wear masks even
Well said.
i don't see anybody making up rules to give the rebound to the 6ft guard when going against a center, so why this..
You keep falsely equivocating "play the game" with "entertain me". They are playing the game now. If they weren't, there would be a timeout and an commercial would air. You just mean constant up and down the floor action. The game isn't just transition basketball, it's also the in between aspect, the "skills" part that teams can exploit for +/- swings.
"Just play the game" is a whining attempt to avoid having to watch strategic game play.
Of course there's an entertainment factor to a potential rules change. Absolutely. But it's not the only reason. The hack-a-player strategy away from the ball is NOT playing the game. It's not. Most of the time, it's done right when the ball is inbounded, most of the players are standing still except for inbounder, the ball handler, and the guy hacking. It's occurring when there is no genuine compe ion of play. Offensive players aren't trying to score or create a scoring opportunity. Defensive players are not trying to prevent the other team from scoring. It's not playing basketball. And I'm not asking for constant up and down floor action. Slow down the pace, have timeouts. But the away from the ball hack strategy is NOT playing the game.
The shot clock was a rules change for the same purpose and effect. Otherwise, once a team got up a few points, they could go to the four corner stall for the remainder of quarters. Would you like to go back to that "strategic" style of play? Have 48 minutes ending with a 10-7 score? Oh, but they're "playing the game" now and you're just whining about having to watch "strategic game play."
Bull . Four corner stall was within the rules and it wasn't playing basketball. Away from the action hack-a-player strategy is within the rules right now and it is NOT playing basketball.
Sure there's an entertainment aspect. I won't deny it. But to think that's all it is is naive and foolish.
Poor counter example.
End of the game when a team is facing a deficit, they still have to foul the player with the ball, or a player attempting to get the ball. That's part of the action. That's part of playing the game. They have to actually run around chasing guys who are trying to get open and foul the first guy that gets the ball. That's part of basketball. If they foul away from the ball at the end of the game, isn't it a free throw and possession?
You're trying to find a comparable example. But there is none. The hacking strategy away from the action does not have a parallel. And not just in basketball, in any of the other four major sports. It's a way to manipulate the rules to exploit the weakness of an opposing player with very little risk.
As I just said above, of course entertainment is part of it. It makes for a bad product. It's not some clever strategy. It's a manipulation of the rules.
And yes, these players should learn to shoot free throws. What you're are missing is the fact that even with a rules change, teams can force bad free throw shooters to shoot free throws. That's being lost. Hack bad free throw players. Absolutely. Send them to the free throw line 20 times a game need be. Continue the hack-a-player strategy.
Just do it within the context of playing basketball.
That's it.
That's all.
the hacking strategy is an attempt to exploit a players's weakness, therefore it is playing the game just like it is calling for a post up on a smaller player
All of it is playing basketball. It's just not as entertaining as you'd like. Prior to the 24 second shot clock, they were playing ball. Prior to the 3pt line, they were playing ball. Rule changes often are for entertainment sake, not to keep the "playing ball" bull mantra alive. It's all playing ball. You're using the "no true Scotsman" fallacy btw.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions