The NBA is going to consider changes to intentional fouls or what is referred to as 'Hack-a-Shaq'.
My suggestion is to leave it alone so we don't award a player for not being able to play a complete game.
If some change has to be made 'for the good of the game' than how about adding a new foul called an 'out of play' foul. Not to be confused with the 'off the ball' foul. Players sometimes are fouled trying to make cuts to get open but that is part of the game play. An intentional foul should not be included in any rule for that. The intentional 'out of play' foul could be awarded just one free throw and the ball out of bounds. However, if the free throw is missed than play continues and the team does not retain the ball. That way they are kind of doing both. They are changing the rule to discourage the practice but not to the extent of completely awarding the poor shooter. If he misses the team fouling is awarded if the he makes it they are penalized for the attempt. This would serve to change the strategy of when to use it too because there is greater risk.
What is your suggestion ?
Why should the NBA change a rule to cover up a player's deficiency? Most of these guys are getting paid millions of dollars to play basketball, they're suppose to make an uncontested 15 foot shot with ease. And to those clamoring that Pop is making a mockery of the game for using this strategy, no. He's making a mockery out of guys like Josh Smith for disrespecting the game and not learning how to shoot proper free throws.
I agreed with your position and said so. Hence, my comment "for the good of the game" of those that take that position.
isnt the league made up of 400 of best players in the world?
lol cant hit a ft...then u cant use best to describe what the league is...
Right there with you.
But, if the NBA had to make some adjustment what would you suggest ?
I like my suggestion because it increases the chance taken. It makes the difference between the good and the bad of doing it greater. Currently, either they give up none to two points in exchange for taking the ball out of the playmakers hands. If this rule were implemented the same reward would be available but the exchange would be to give up a point and possession.
Imo they should allow a team to opt for an electronicalized free throw. A computer program that will mulates the free throw based on real %s.
For example. If they foul demonkey, doc can just say emulate and the program will emulate a shot with 30% probability or whatever the monkeys % is.
This would save lots of time and pain to all while still keeping them monkeys real.
Or even better. They can call a clipper fan to shoot for the monkey
They already announced there will be no changes to it this season.
This reminds me of people who say chess is too boring. They play with a clock for speed chess. All that does it get them to the end game faster, but it doesn't make the game of chess any better. If your desire is to get to the end of the game faster, why not just skip the game and vote on the winners, American Idol style?
I think golf needs to be sped up. Who wants to watch people walk between holes? I say let them drive golf carts. Shouldn't we really only be watching a montage of the best moments of any sporting event anyhow? Why watch all the boring stuff?
There's nothing wrong with how the game is now. You win or you lose based on who you bring and how they play. Having a guy that can't hit the FT is worse than having a guy who can't hit a 3pt shot, because everyone on the floor is subject to getting to the FT line. Teams either need to make FT shooting a bigger part of player selection or live with the results of not doing so. Change nothing.
Keep it the way it is, except that the intentional off the ball foul is worth 3 personal fouls on an individual player (but still only 1 foul as far as team fouls and bonus are concerned). That way, you limit the ability of teams to do it too excessively even when they put in bench scrubs to commit the fouls. It forces the coach fouling to hesitate to use the hack-a-Shaq strategy too much particularly early in games, like the first half without at least considering what it does for availability of some of the bench players. And if one of your key rotation players does it, that's 3 big personal fouls on him just on one play.
It forces fouling teams to at least foul the poor free throw shooter when he's involved in the play (setting a pick or on a offensive rebound attempt), instead of allowing fouling teams to just run up on the guy and hug him in the backcourt or at halfcourt. If the fouled team keeps the poor free throw shooter out of the play, away from the ball, away from any action, that intentional foul costs the fouling player 3 personal fouls. Do it too much early, and you may not be able to afford to do it late in the 4th quarter without losing players to fouling out. Then it would be unlikely to see a guy like DeAndre shoot 20+ free throws in a half. He can still get hacked, but as opposed to 20+ free throws, maybe it's 6-8 free throws. Helps a little with the pace of game without taking out the strategy completely.
That's the worst solution I have ever heard. How about Jordan just learn to hit his ing free throws like Splitter did after he got hacked in the 2012 WCF?
Only pussies & assholes employ "hack."
Free throws weren't part of the original rules of basketball. They were implemented to help players who couldn't defend well enough. How about players learn to play defense without fouling? If they can't, just let them get overpowered and scored on. If the point is to make the game better, just as the rule to shoot free throws was to make the game better, then limiting the ability to use hack-a-Shaq also makes sense.
Let's add four pointers too. Also halfcourt shot is worth 7 now, should lead to many more exciting finishes.
Free throws were implemented to protect players and the game. Lol
Flagrants were also not part of original basketball. Lets abolish them so we can have s on wheelchairs
Offensive foul should be worth zero fouls, you don't want to limit s' aggresiveness attacking the rim. It makes the game better.
Free throws were implemented to protect players and the game. Lol
Flagrants were also not part of original basketball. Lets abolish them so we can have s on wheelchairs
I didn't call for abolishing anything from the game, just tweeking the rules. The evolution of the game has seen rules changes from being able to dribble to the 24 second clock to different rules on zone defense to not being able to dunk and then again being able to dunk. A rule tweek to the hack-a-Shaq strategy makes sense because the hack-a-Shaq strategy sucks to watch. If you're a Spurs fan, you have no problem with it because over the years it has been advantageous to your team. I understand that. But it sucks to watch. It makes the game worse. The point of basketball wasn't to be a shooting contest. If it was, then make the game a free throw contest. Take away all play and just have teams shoot free throws and the team that makes the most free throws win.
My suggestion did not "abolish" the strategy. It merely discourages the excessive use of it.
Hack a Shaq is part of a defensive strategy that is high risk. I personally don't really see the point of employing it as even a very bad FT shooter gets about 50% at the FT line, and it teams, overall, don't average 50% from the field. There is also the disruption in offensive rhythm, but overall, the success rate of employing hack a shaq is really half and half.
Ultimately, the job of a coach is to exploit the weakness of the other team, if the opposition FT shooting is so bad that it is worse than its FG shooting, you foul them to give yourself a better chance at winning.
I just don't see why the league would want to take away a defensive strategy that is based on a fundamental part of the game.
The excessive use is the whole point of the strategy, to get the opposing coach to pull the ty free throw shooter.
you'd have teams bullying the player as he's coming down the court with off the ball fouls. If your situation leads to off the ball fould being worth 3 fouls that would be disastrous
The excessive use is also what makes the game hard to watch. Limiting it allows for the strategy to be used more prudently without completely making a game unwatchable. Imagine basketball without a 24 second shot clock and watching bad teams that can't score hold the ball on offense for 5 minutes at a time. Making tweeks to hack-and-Shaq is an attempt to make the game more watchable, just like the 24 second shot clock.
I don't get what you're saying.
teams would intentionally foul the bad shooter anyway, only it wouldn't be a love tap, they'd just foul the guy off the ball even as he's running down the court like they do now. Then it would be up to the ref to determine whether it's worth three fouls or one.
why? because you say so?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
