PDA

View Full Version : Hack a "____" Changes Coming!



Lakers + Giants
02-05-2016, 08:26 PM
http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2016/02/04/report-silver-says-changes-coming-to-hack-a-shaq-rule/?ls=iref:nbahpts


REPORT: SILVER SAYS CHANGES COMING TO HACK-A-SHAQ RULEFebruary 4, 2016 · 8:09 PM ET

HANG TIME HEADQUARTERS — Changes are in store for the dreaded Hack-A-Shaq (Dwight or DeAndre or Andre) rule this summer.
Or at leas that is the sentiment from NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, who addressed the topic on USA Today Sports‘ NBA A-to-Z Podcast.
Like many fans, coaches, players, executives and observers, the Commissioner has grown weary of the often-used strategy, which basically consists of fouling the poorest free throw shooter on an opposing team in an effort to limit said team’s scoring opportunities.
More from USA Today Sports:
“Even for those who had not wanted to make the change, we’re being forced to that position just based on these sophisticated coaches understandably using every tactic available to them,” Silver said. “It’s just not the way we want to see the game played.”
Hack-A-Player is up this year. The number of those intentional fouls through mid-December surpassed the number of times it happened last season (164), and the league is closing in on 300 Hack-A-Player instances before the All-Star break.
Through Tuesday’s games, fouls against Los Angeles Clippers center DeAndre Jordan, Detroit Pistons center Andre Drummond and Houston Rockets Dwight Howard have accounted for 69% of Hack-A-Player fouls. Jordan accounts for 34%.
Silver knows the data. But the interaction with fans as he watches a game has made an impact, too.
“Again, as I travel around the league, there’s that one school of thought ‘Guys have got to make their free throws,’ ” Silver said. “But then at the end of the day, we are an entertainment property, and it’s clear that when you’re in the arena, that fans are looking at me, shrugging their shoulders with that look saying, ‘Aren’t you going to do something about this?’ ”


Thoughts?

I used to be really against this rule and still kind of hate the fact that they're changing it based on just a few players. I honestly hated this once Dwight left us because I hated him, now that he's no longer even a threat I don't care about this nearly as much. I know a lot of people are still going to hate this though.

tredigs
02-05-2016, 08:47 PM
Personally, I'm very glad. It's a loop-hole way for coaches to try to catch up in games, and imo not in the "spirit of the game". For the "Just make your damn FT" crowd, they can still take solace in the fact that these players can be fouled and sent to the line at any other point that they have the ball in their hands. They'll still be taking/missing plenty of FT's. Some of those Hou/Lac playoff games actually became un-watchable for me. As in, I turned off the TV (as a basketball nut who was pumped for this series) and did something else.

I like Silver.

beasted86
02-05-2016, 08:51 PM
I feel like it ruins the entertainment value of the game, but understand that teams should still be able to punish terrible FT shooters.

How about allow 3 intentional fouls away from the ball per quarter and then it becomes 1 shot and the ball (like a technical)?

tredigs
02-05-2016, 08:57 PM
I feel like it ruins the entertainment value of the game, but understand that teams should still be able to punish terrible FT shooters.

How about allow 3 intentional fouls away from the ball per quarter and then it becomes 1 shot and the ball (like a technical)?

I feel like if a novice is watching the game and would have a "WAIT WTF IS GOING ON HERE? This is nothing like anything else in the basketball game what is this?!" moment, it's time to reevaluate what is going on. Intentionally foul him if he's shooting the ball? Sure, fine. But I'm sick of watching 7 footers run away from other NBA players in the middle of a basketball game like we're watching two kids playing tag in recess. Enough is enough with that BS. http://www.hothothoops.com/2015/11/24/9791012/miami-heat-poke-fun-at-new-york-knicks-failed-attempt-to-hack-a-hassan

More-Than-Most
02-05-2016, 09:20 PM
It shouldn't be asking alot to ask NBA players to make their free throws... It doesn't bother me either way really but it basically gives a pass to lazy big men who couldnt care less about free throw shooting.

flea
02-05-2016, 09:34 PM
I think the solution where you give the team the option of side-out or FTs is the best one, personally.

But the whole thing is only so ridiculous because nearly half of NBA games are bonus situations - which is just absurd and against the whole spirit of the game. It is supposed to be a "penalty" (hence that's why it's called that) for teams who sloppily defend rather than par for the course every quarter. But since defense on the perimeter is, for all intents and purposes, illegal in the NBA now we have quarters that get into the bonus with like 6 or 7 minutes left in to go. It's ridiculous - it destroys the pace of the game, it artificially rewards non-basketball plays by ballhandlers, and it makes the league look rigged because the nature of how they call fouls is widely disparate depending on the name on your jersey.

The NBA should increase the number of fouls in the quarter before you're in the penalty to 6 or 7 if they're going to give players 6 fouls before a foul-out. It will also encourage refs to hold their whistle so we can actually watch basketball instead of FT contests like James Harden games.

Alayla
02-05-2016, 10:01 PM
Senseless.. just rewards bad FT shooters.

jerellh528
02-05-2016, 10:05 PM
The drummonds, Jordans, whitesides, and Howards of the world are smiling.

PAOboston
02-05-2016, 11:05 PM
This is embarrassing for the game. It should be a requirement that to be able to sign a professional contract, you should be able to hit at least 70 percent of your free throws.

numba1CHANGsta
02-05-2016, 11:08 PM
Finally, now teams will quit that BS especially come playoffs. If you foul a player who sucks at FT's unintentionally then I'm fine with that, but those constant obvious intentional fouls are so annoying, that's not how you play basketball.

Scoots
02-06-2016, 02:20 AM
I hate to reward players who can't perform basic elements of the game.

How about any player who shoots under 50% gets 1 point without shooting a FT and the ball goes the other way. That way intentional fouls don't slow the game to a grind.

slaker619
02-06-2016, 02:35 AM
Finally !!

Gander13SM
02-06-2016, 02:55 AM
I don't mind it. I do think people should just work their free throws but the truth is shooting free throws is a skill and not everyone can develop it. If you're an elite defender and/or ball handler but you can't make shots at all, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be in this league.

The thing that gets me is I reckon it's mostly psychological.

I don't mind coaches using it, there's clearly issues for spectators but if I were a coach I wouldn't hesitate. I don't blame them at all.

It will be interesting to see what the changes are. On one side of it I think it's the right move to change it. But at the same time I wonder how far you could go with it, should we lower the rim so guys who can't dunk can do it? Raise the rim to remove dunking completely? Should we move the 3pt line closer so more guys can shoot 3's? Move it back some so less guys can shoot 3's?

At what point do you say "It's a skill. If you don't have that skill and are incapable of developing that skill you just have to live with it"

ManningToTyree
02-06-2016, 03:28 AM
I'll wait to see what the change is before judging but I don't think the nba should punish teams for using a legitimate strategy because a few guys don't work hard at their craft.

basch152
02-06-2016, 05:25 AM
To the people saying they should just make their free throws - how about the other team just actually get a stop?

Free throws is the ine weakness that can be taken advantage of like this. If someone can't shoot you can't just force him yo shoot and go "well, maybe you should learn to shoot 3s".

jerellh528
02-06-2016, 06:02 AM
To the people saying they should just make their free throws - how about the other team just actually get a stop?

Free throws is the ine weakness that can be taken advantage of like this. If someone can't shoot you can't just force him yo shoot and go "well, maybe you should learn to shoot 3s".

They've been doing this to Lebron lol. I've literally seen him catch the ball on the pereimter and be given like 5+ feet of space and just be dared to shoot. He hasn't made a 3 in over 6 games, 0-18 in that stretch.

Anyway, I think it's dumb to accommodate player deficiencies with rule changes. The league is about to implement a new rule that will literally help cover a player's weakness. Hopefully it doesn't change much. Intentional fouls are part of the game, just like when a player is about to go in for a layup or dunk and gets wrapped up to prevent it, maybe they should just get a stop too. Or at the end of games when you're down by a few and you foul to extend the game and give your team a chance at a tie with a missed ft, maybe they should eliminate that too. It's all strategy.

Lakers + Giants
02-06-2016, 06:09 AM
I forgot who said it but i heard it from one of the commentators, the idea of reversing the rules. Instead of not being able to hack a shaq during the last 2 minutes it should be the opposite. Only allow the hack a shaq during the last 2 minutes and not the first 46. I personally liked that one.

goingfor28
02-06-2016, 06:14 AM
It shouldn't be asking alot to ask NBA players to make their free throws... It doesn't bother me either way really but it basically gives a pass to lazy big men who couldnt care less about free throw shooting.
The way it is now is giving a pass to teams who can't play proper defense. It works both ways honestly.

Toronto Homer
02-06-2016, 07:34 AM
I can understand both sides of the issue. You don't want to have to change any rules based on 3 or 4 poor FT shooters and I get that and the long time, big time basketball fan is fine with the way it is. Everyone should be able to hit over 50% of their FTs and if they can't you keep them off the floor in tight games.
On the other hand, I can see how the league has a problem bringing in more casual fans when players are getting intentionally fouled because they are bad shooters and completely limiting the action and making the game almost unwatchable. The league will always cater to growing the popularity of their product and don't want to see new fans tuning out because they find the game boring.
I'm just hopeful that they don't do anything too extreme in addressing this, but it is something that they will almost certainly do something about.

Kinkotheclown
02-06-2016, 09:28 AM
If a team is doing it early in the game or down 20, I understand making a change but if it's a 12 point game with 5 minutes left? No.
Practice your FTs

Teams should be able to exploit the other's weakness. If you want to have a guy who can't shoot FTs on the court because he plays great D, I should be able to foul him and make him shoot.

Vince70
02-06-2016, 10:02 AM
The Hack a Shaq bullcrap should've been changed after the 99-00 season when coaches like Don Nelson would abuse it to the extreme in the 1st half of games against the Lakers.

Nelson would send in the 11th/12th men on his bench, in the middle of the 2nd quarter no matter the score, to send Shaq to the foul line like 6 straight trips down the floor. It is ugly as hell basketball to watch and stops the flow of the game so much that all the players lose their rhythm.

I am so glad this might be the last year we have to watch that junk.

likemystylez
02-06-2016, 10:24 AM
Senseless.. just rewards bad FT shooters.

THIS!!!!!

Anybody who has ever been in a competitive situation will tell you that teams spend tons of time and resources looking for weaknesses in their opponent to stop them. Coaching staffs scout and chart all sorts of things to give their team an advantage when preparing a game plan.

Making a rule for a the few shooters is absolutely ridiculous. TAKE THE GUY OFF THE FLOOR OR TEACH HIM TO MAKE FREE THROWS. 2 doable remedies for the teams negatively impacted by it.

It would be like not allowing a pitcher to throw curve balls when certain players are at bat because statistically they have a more difficult time hitting them? Absolutely insane!!

likemystylez
02-06-2016, 10:34 AM
The way it is now is giving a pass to teams who can't play proper defense. It works both ways honestly.

what is proper defense? shutting someone down and never letting them score?

should it be illegal to force a great player to pass the ball? or should you have to defend him one on one?

Should it be illegal to foul a guy on the inbound when you are 3 with 2 seconds to go in the game?

Should it be illegal to force a guy left if he is a lot better going right? should you play proper strong enough to hold him off going to his strength?

Teams are going to use whatever strategy they can to win the game. thats why they are out there on the floor not so you can say they are playing "proper" defense... whatever that means

Vee-Rex
02-06-2016, 12:13 PM
Here's my suggestion:

When a specific player has been fouled X amount of times in a game, the team can elect to inbound the ball instead of shooting free throws. X can equal 5 or 6 or 7, whatever.

That would solve every issue.

1. It would allow a team to still hack a guy a few times if they want. And it can even hurt the team being hacked if it happens at a critical moment and Drummond/Jordan can't hit the free throws. So it still places emphasis on players improving their free throw shooting. There's no bailout because Drummond and Jordan and Howard and whoever else could still be detrimental to their team.

2. There would be a threshold in place to keep games from getting out of hand. Once a player is fouled 6 (or 5 or whatever is a good number) times, that team can inbound the ball and save everyone from watching a foul-fest. This keeps the game from becoming ridiculously boring because after X amount of times, the team can just inbound.

This fix would allow both sides of the argument to have their way.

LOb0
02-06-2016, 12:52 PM
Whats next? Guys who can't shoot you must not sag off? Guys who are turnover prone you can't reach in on? No I got it, a guy who's poor a defender you can only attack him twice in a row or its a technical foul.

There has always been a counter to the FT shooting, take the guy out of the game. Its the same thing as any other exploitable weakness. This is a total joke. All this does is reward someone for doing something poorly.

Vee-Rex
02-06-2016, 02:00 PM
Whats next? Guys who can't shoot you must not sag off? Guys who are turnover prone you can't reach in on? No I got it, a guy who's poor a defender you can only attack him twice in a row or its a technical foul.

There has always been a counter to the FT shooting, take the guy out of the game. Its the same thing as any other exploitable weakness. This is a total joke. All this does is reward someone for doing something poorly.

The NBA is not trying to protect its players. It's trying to protect its product. In all those examples you listed no one cares. If Kevin Love is being abused then the fans get to see him getting scored on. No one cares. If Rondo is sagged off of, no one cares.

I realize it's hyperbole but your point fails, because ultimately the game retains its excitement value.

Whereas, if someone's constantly being hacked, the fans are watching a boring game of free throw shooting. Games are extended longer than they should be. The excitement is sapped out of the product.

AT THE SAME TIME, I don't believe we should bail out guys who can't shoot free throws.

It's astounding that people can't comprehend WHY the NBA does not want games to morph into a free-throw shooting display.

flea
02-06-2016, 02:05 PM
It's astounding that people can't comprehend WHY the NBA does not want games to morph into a free-throw shooting display.

It already is, and college is going that way too (I've seen two games in the last couple of weeks that were in the bonus with like 12 to go in the half). Seriously I want to see average stats on this, I would bet every team is in the penalty with at least 4 or 5 to go in the quarter on average.

LanceUpperCut
02-06-2016, 02:27 PM
The NBA is not trying to protect its players. It's trying to protect its product. In all those examples you listed no one cares. If Kevin Love is being abused then the fans get to see him getting scored on. No one cares. If Rondo is sagged off of, no one cares.

I realize it's hyperbole but your point fails, because ultimately the game retains its excitement value.

Whereas, if someone's constantly being hacked, the fans are watching a boring game of free throw shooting. Games are extended longer than they should be. The excitement is sapped out of the product.

AT THE SAME TIME, I don't believe we should bail out guys who can't shoot free throws.

It's astounding that people can't comprehend WHY the NBA does not want games to morph into a free-throw shooting display.

If your team is making a come back cause some NBA player can't hit FT's then it's exciting for your fanbase. To me this isn't really a issue. I imagine we all watch a ton of BBall and how often has this situation disrupted your viewing pleasure. I can't think of any really, I always found it amusing the very rare time I see it happen.

blahblahyoutoo
02-06-2016, 02:28 PM
guys with weak handles, you are not allowed to harass and go for steals on.

Jeffy25
02-06-2016, 02:41 PM
It shouldn't be asking alot to ask NBA players to make their free throws... It doesn't bother me either way really but it basically gives a pass to lazy big men who couldnt care less about free throw shooting.

I'm right handed and I could shoot left handed only free throws and make more out of 100 than Rondo, Jordan and Shaq do.

It takes absolutely nothing to soften your shot and lob it in there. Free throws are so easy, and as long as all the players on your court make more than 55% of their shots, then the strategy is void. Every player in the NBA should be able to make more than 55% (1.1 points per possession).

Gander13SM
02-06-2016, 03:18 PM
I'm right handed and I could shoot left handed only free throws and make more out of 100 than Rondo, Jordan and Shaq do.

It takes absolutely nothing to soften your shot and lob it in there. Free throws are so easy, and as long as all the players on your court make more than 55% of their shots, then the strategy is void. Every player in the NBA should be able to make more than 55% (1.1 points per possession).

Yes. But you're not doing it in an arena with 19,000 people staring at you, booing you, holding their breath etc.

I'm a big believer in most of these issues being psychological. They crumble to the pressure, lose focus, panic. DJ actually has decent form on his free throws. There's no way it's his technique to blame.

kobe4thewinbang
02-06-2016, 03:20 PM
It's about time. It makes for an ugly game and intentional fouling is off-putting enough from an entertainment factor. Plus, when it matters it seems the big guys make the other team pay more often than not.

Scoots
02-06-2016, 09:18 PM
It sounded to me like silver was specific about the over the back fouls on free throws ... Not necessarily on all intentional fouls.

Scoots
02-06-2016, 09:24 PM
How about you add the option where the team gets to choose FTs or side out on the foul BUT if the team chooses side out the fouled player must leave the game for 2 minutes.

At least then you are not rewarding bad FT shooters AND the runs of fouls would end.

likemystylez
02-06-2016, 09:25 PM
It sounded to me like silver was specific about the over the back fouls on free throws ... Not necessarily on all intentional fouls.

ahh well, thats a little bit better. I think some of those over the back fouls at the free throw line could fall under the flagrant ruling. They are definitely excessive, and when the rebound is secured by another player 10 feet away... they arent really necessary

Sly Guy
02-06-2016, 10:10 PM
It shouldn't be asking alot to ask NBA players to make their free throws... It doesn't bother me either way really but it basically gives a pass to lazy big men who couldnt care less about free throw shooting.

that's pretty much it. It's almost shameful a professional athlete can't make an unguarded shot from a set distance when some of his peers make them at over 90%. It's been part of the game longer than this most recent crop of big men who can't make, and by adjusting the rules, it's a way of giving a free pass to players not dedicated enough to perfect their craft.

beasted86
02-06-2016, 10:33 PM
I think the naysayers against this need to chill out. The rule will change and eventually you will get used to it.

I'm sure once upon a time there was some guy crying "what do you mean zone defense is illegal?" But nonetheless, illegal defense, and eventually its successor defensive 3 seconds violation were born.

It's really an analogous rule change that's similarly taking away a defensive strategy but will ultimately speed up the game and scoring.

Raps08-09 Champ
02-07-2016, 01:54 AM
Why are we making the game easier for a player's weakness?

If I fouled James Harden and Stephen Curry every time, is anyone going to complain? I guess FTs are only fun if it goes in.

Jeffy25
02-07-2016, 03:09 AM
Yes. But you're not doing it in an arena with 19,000 people staring at you, booing you, holding their breath etc.

I'm a big believer in most of these issues being psychological. They crumble to the pressure, lose focus, panic. DJ actually has decent form on his free throws. There's no way it's his technique to blame.

Every single pro athlete has been playing in front of crowds like that for years.

They are beyond used to it.

tredigs
02-07-2016, 03:42 AM
I hate to reward players who can't perform basic elements of the game.

How about any player who shoots under 50% gets 1 point without shooting a FT and the ball goes the other way. That way intentional fouls don't slow the game to a grind.

I did not finish your paragraph, but I can only assume you continued with, "and actually play true defense"

Scoots
02-07-2016, 05:50 AM
I did not finish your paragraph, but I can only assume you continued with, "and actually play true defense"
Finish reading.

Gander13SM
02-07-2016, 07:54 AM
Every single pro athlete has been playing in front of crowds like that for years.

They are beyond used to it.

Just because you do something a lot doesn't mean you will grow accustomed to it.

And playing in front of those crowds in live action when it's 5 on 5 is a lot different than playing in front of those crowds when all eyes are on you and everyone else is just standing still around you talking ish.

It's like playing soccer vs shooting a penalty. The pressure can be tremendous for these guys.

As I said, a lot of these dudes have good technique. And there's even reports of them nailing free throws in practice. To me the difference maker is the psychology of it all.

Vee-Rex
02-07-2016, 11:18 AM
Just because you do something a lot doesn't mean you will grow accustomed to it.

And playing in front of those crowds in live action when it's 5 on 5 is a lot different than playing in front of those crowds when all eyes are on you and everyone else is just standing still around you talking ish.

It's like playing soccer vs shooting a penalty. The pressure can be tremendous for these guys.

As I said, a lot of these dudes have good technique. And there's even reports of them nailing free throws in practice. To me the difference maker is the psychology of it all.

This.

You can go on 300 job interviews, that doesn't mean you're never going to be nervous on any following interviews. That's just how it works sometimes.

Raps08-09 Champ
02-07-2016, 02:03 PM
This is like the MLB taking away shifts because pitchers can't hit their spots and the defense in a regular defensive shift can't get outs.

NYKalltheway
02-07-2016, 06:02 PM
I never thought that this NBA could go even lower. Brace yourselves :laugh:

Scoots
02-07-2016, 10:08 PM
I never thought that this NBA could go even lower. Brace yourselves :laugh:
It still doesn't look there are any changes coming to hack-a ... Just to the over the back fouls.

goingfor28
02-08-2016, 12:01 AM
I never thought that this NBA could go even lower. Brace yourselves :laugh:
Lower than allowing games like HOU/LAC last postseason where Dwight/Capela and DJ just kept having a free throw contest? Ya, that was fun!

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 04:49 AM
Lower than allowing games like HOU/LAC last postseason where Dwight/Capela and DJ just kept having a free throw contest? Ya, that was fun!

Sign me up for more drives through the cleared lanes and more dunkfest please. That's quality basketball :laugh2:


It still doesn't look there are any changes coming to hack-a ... Just to the over the back fouls.

I'll definitely wait for the official rule change to be announced, but the NBA has been progressing from the mid 90s into a very soft league and it looks nothing like the game of basketball. At least, FIBA is still realistic about protecting the game.

tredigs
02-08-2016, 06:31 AM
Sign me up for more drives through the cleared lanes and more dunkfest please. That's quality basketball :laugh2:



I'll definitely wait for the official rule change to be announced, but the NBA has been progressing from the mid 90s into a very soft league and it looks nothing like the game of basketball. At least, FIBA is still realistic about protecting the game.

"Protecting the game" is one way to put it. The sanctity of the hack-a- strategy. Classic.


If the coaches had the foresight to do this to Wilt Chamberlain at the time, the rule would have been changed 50 years ago.

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 08:42 AM
"Protecting the game" is one way to put it. The sanctity of the hack-a- strategy. Classic.


If the coaches had the foresight to do this to Wilt Chamberlain at the time, the rule would have been changed 50 years ago.

There's no sanctity, but it's the icing on the cake (unless there's a couple more layers, maybe they decide to abolish players over 7ft tall in 15 years)


FIBA = Protecting the game. Fact. No matter how useless they may be. They haven't destroyed the game for the sake of ratings.
NBA = Protecting their product. Fact.

Don't be silly.

IndyRealist
02-08-2016, 09:49 AM
In other news, the competition committee will be looking at changing the high of the goal to 6ft, and moving the baselines to 30ft apart, because I'm short and slow.

Scoots
02-08-2016, 10:45 AM
There's no sanctity, but it's the icing on the cake (unless there's a couple more layers, maybe they decide to abolish players over 7ft tall in 15 years)


FIBA = Protecting the game. Fact. No matter how useless they may be. They haven't destroyed the game for the sake of ratings.
NBA = Protecting their product. Fact.

Don't be silly.

I don't think I understand ... FIBA has changed a bunch of rules and their game is even softer than the NBA.

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 11:51 AM
I don't think I understand ... FIBA has changed a bunch of rules and their game is even softer than the NBA.

FIBA haven't changed their rules that much. What they did was quite radical, as they increased the size of the areas close to the basket to help with drive scoring and they abandoned the 20 minute halves for 4 ten minute quarters and adopted a 24 second shot clock. Most other rule changes are just bouncing every now and a couple of years and it's really annoying lol. Jump ball/possession and clock type or rules. So while there have been some radical changes, the other changes were very gradual and they never softened the rules up like the NBA has.

It's definitely not softer. The players are usually just less athletic so there's less intensity than say what you saw in the early 2000s in the NBA.
Just an example, I'm not gonna barrage you with video-examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcbJcUhYKMg
Just show me how this is softer than what the NBA has to show today.

I've grown up playing basketball with proper coaching, as most of us in this continent have, as well as playing with friends every now and then, and we've all been taught that basketball is a contact sport. If you remove the contact part, you're changing the sport and creating something else. This is what the NBA is doing here over the last 10 years.

IndyRealist
02-08-2016, 12:09 PM
I don't think the "soft euroleague" label has ever stood up to scrutiny. People who say international basketball is soft usually haven't watched any.

The label seems to almost exclusively come from jumpshooting bigs that crossover to the NBA, like Bargnani. I mean, is Tony Parker soft? He finishes through traffic as well as anyone under 6'5". Is Gortat soft? Asik? HAVE YOU SEEN MARJANOVIC?! He's terrifying.

Scoots
02-08-2016, 12:14 PM
FIBA haven't changed their rules that much. What they did was quite radical, as they increased the size of the areas close to the basket to help with drive scoring and they abandoned the 20 minute halves for 4 ten minute quarters and adopted a 24 second shot clock. Most other rule changes are just bouncing every now and a couple of years and it's really annoying lol. Jump ball/possession and clock type or rules. So while there have been some radical changes, the other changes were very gradual and they never softened the rules up like the NBA has.

It's definitely not softer. The players are usually just less athletic so there's less intensity than say what you saw in the early 2000s in the NBA.
Just an example, I'm not gonna barrage you with video-examples here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcbJcUhYKMg
Just show me how this is softer than what the NBA has to show today.

I've grown up playing basketball with proper coaching, as most of us in this continent have, as well as playing with friends every now and then, and we've all been taught that basketball is a contact sport. If you remove the contact part, you're changing the sport and creating something else. This is what the NBA is doing here over the last 10 years.

Okay, well the lesser athletes may explain away some of the "physicality" differences I see when watching.

This thread is about the hack-a statement the commish made, but all he was talking about was doing away with the rule that says that an over-the-back foul on a free throw, even an intentional over-the-back foul is treated as a common foul. They may change it to be a flagrant, or a free throw and possession. I'm against most of the proposals I've seen to eliminate the hack-a in play because they do seem to reward poor FT shooters, but the over-the-back only on FTs is really a loophole in the rules that should be closed, and it's not about bad FT shooting but it's stupid and it's going to hurt someone soon.

GodsSon
02-08-2016, 12:24 PM
Terrible idea to get rid of it.

Yes, it slows down the game significantly, but it's strategic. FT's are a big part of the game and as a pro, you should be nailing them at a better than 50% clip.

Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel, understand the original design worked perfectly. Why reward poor FT shooters? It's dumb.

Scoots
02-08-2016, 12:32 PM
I don't think the "soft euroleague" label has ever stood up to scrutiny. People who say international basketball is soft usually haven't watched any.

The label seems to almost exclusively come from jumpshooting bigs that crossover to the NBA, like Bargnani. I mean, is Tony Parker soft? He finishes through traffic as well as anyone under 6'5". Is Gortat soft? Asik? HAVE YOU SEEN MARJANOVIC?! He's terrifying.

To clarify, I didn't say FIBA was soft ... just softer than the NBA. But I also admitted that different levels of athleticism plays into that.

As a long time Warriors fan I got to watch Sarunas Marciulionis on a nightly basis and there was NOTHING soft about him.

NYKalltheway
02-08-2016, 03:28 PM
As a long time Warriors fan I got to watch Sarunas Marciulionis on a nightly basis and there was NOTHING soft about him.

Now that's a legend, in every possible way. Along with Sabonis and Jasikevicius, completes the top 3 Lithuanian basketball players of all time. That's good company :)
It's a shame you didn't get to see that much of him due to him being a relatively late comer and had some injuries iirc.

Scoots
02-08-2016, 04:14 PM
Now that's a legend, in every possible way. Along with Sabonis and Jasikevicius, completes the top 3 Lithuanian basketball players of all time. That's good company :)
It's a shame you didn't get to see that much of him due to him being a relatively late comer and had some injuries iirc.

Yeah, I was trying to explain Sabonis to a young pup the other day. That man was very good in the NBA and incredible before his wheels were shot before he finally came to the NBA. I really want the Warriors to draft Sabonis' son this upcoming draft :)

kdspurman
02-10-2016, 12:44 PM
Pop spoke about it yesterday:



“I hate it. It’s ugly, but I’m gonna do it. You don’t want me to do it anymore? Learn how to shoot a free throw. I don’t think about it much other than I hate the look of it,” Popovich said. “It just seems like it’s wrong. In your gut, you know that there’s no place for it. But on the other hand, you’re competing, and you take advantage of things: weaknesses of the other team. If we had a guy that can’t shoot, they’re not gonna guard him. So should I have them promise to guard somebody 45 feet from the bucket when he can’t shoot? Promise you won’t foul my guy [because] he can’t shoot free throws? That’s wrong, too. So I’m not sure what the answer is. The league is trying to figure it out. We’re all trying to figure it out.”

Scoots
02-10-2016, 02:25 PM
Speak Pop!

You can't make a rule based on intentional fouls because then it becomes a battle of defining how to officiate "intentional" vs "non-intentional" and we all know players can act.

It can't come with no penalty to the team with a bad FT shooter on the floor because that breaks the game the other way.

Options we've seen:

1. Give fouled team the option of side out.
2. FT and possession on off the ball fouls all game.
3. Option #1 along with a mandatory "rest" for the fouled player if team chooses side out (you can't shoot your FT, you leave the game).

The issue with #1 is that there is no negative to bad FT shooting at all anymore.

The issue with #2 is that now bad FT shooters can go foul hunting for 48 minutes. i.e Bogut and Howard battling in the first quarter on a box out, a foul is called and now either team getting a possible free point AND possession ... that doesn't work either.

The issue with #3 is that the NBA doesn't have a penalty box so it would be a new load on officials. The "you can't shoot the FT, you leave the game" rule has been in place as long as I recall, but the fouled player was never allowed to return before.

Any other ideas?

tredigs
02-10-2016, 03:55 PM
It's an off the ball intentional foul that they will get rid of. I'm pretty sure they can distinguish between whether or not a grown man is chasing around another grown man and hugging him mid-court while staring at the referee. This was not part of the NBA strategy in 1992. I assure you, the game will be fine.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 04:48 PM
It's an off the ball intentional foul that they will get rid of. I'm pretty sure they can distinguish between whether or not a grown man is chasing around another grown man and hugging him mid-court while staring at the referee. This was not part of the NBA strategy in 1992. I assure you, the game will be fine.

It wouldn't be hard to fake it to the point that they can raise the point as a debate. If one player is looking away and runs over another player ... is it intentional? The fact that there will be debate is it's own issue.

Off the ball fouls are easy to see that's certainly true.

I can assure you that intentional fouls were absolutely a common tactic in 1992.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 04:49 PM
It's an off the ball intentional foul that they will get rid of. I'm pretty sure they can distinguish between whether or not a grown man is chasing around another grown man and hugging him mid-court while staring at the referee. This was not part of the NBA strategy in 1992. I assure you, the game will be fine.

So what is your suggested change?

Vee-Rex
02-10-2016, 04:56 PM
So what is your suggested change?

What do you think of my suggestion on page 2?

I think it hits 2 birds with one stone:

1. Effectively eliminates longer, drawn-out, boring games where one player is constantly fouled. The NBA product is protected, and fans are spared long periods of hacking.

2. Poor free throw shooters can still be fouled with strategy as long as they're below the threshold. They can still negatively impact the game (even at crucial moments) because they can't hit free throws.

tredigs
02-10-2016, 05:14 PM
So what is your suggested change?

What do you think of my suggestion on page 2?

I think it hits 2 birds with one stone:

1. Effectively eliminates longer, drawn-out, boring games where one player is constantly fouled. The NBA product is protected, and fans are spared long periods of hacking.

2. Poor free throw shooters can still be fouled with strategy as long as they're below the threshold. They can still negatively impact the game (even at crucial moments) because they can't hit free throws.

This is a little too convoluted for my taste Vee-Rex. I think they should simply make it a scenario where any intentional foul to a player who is off the ball results in a technical foul and a side ball out. If they have the ball in their hands? Feel free to hack and send him to the line if it is a bonus situation. If not, let's play some actual basketball. It's very simple and it would work.

I also do not think there should be a foul limit period (an opponent bonus after any single player reaches their 6th foul and continues to foul, rather than ejecting him from the game), but that that is another bag of worms and probably far too ingrained to change at this point.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 06:35 PM
I'd be okay with 3 to make 2 after the 6th foul.

tredigs
02-10-2016, 07:04 PM
I'd be okay with 3 to make 2 after the 6th foul.

For some reason I don't know what you mean here at all. Elaborate plz?

As for the foul limit, I just don't want there to ever be a scenario where an overzealous (or bought) ref can theoretically call multiple terrible fouls (be it a charge/block scenario, a light touch on the arm on a PnR that would standardly be ignored, etc) on a superstar in an NBA Finals game and have him thrown. It gives officials WAY too much power on the game imo. The idea of ejecting players for common fouls is ridiculous to me.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 07:09 PM
This is a little too convoluted for my taste Vee-Rex. I think they should simply make it a scenario where any intentional foul to a player who is off the ball results in a technical foul and a side ball out. If they have the ball in their hands? Feel free to hack and send him to the line if it is a bonus situation. If not, let's play some actual basketball. It's very simple and it would work.

I also do not think there should be a foul limit period (an opponent bonus after any single player reaches their 6th foul and continues to foul, rather than ejecting him from the game), but that that is another bag of worms and probably far too ingrained to change at this point.
A technical and possession? That's way too much bonus for a player who can't shoot a ft. So Bogut gets fouled and Curry shoots a ft (still takes time) and then there is a reasonable chance curry hits a 3 so a hack-a-Bogut becomes worse than fouling curry with the ball. Too much.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 07:15 PM
For some reason I don't know what you mean here at all. Elaborate plz?

As for the foul limit, I just don't want there to ever be a scenario where an overzealous (or bought) ref can theoretically call multiple terrible fouls (be it a charge/block scenario, a light touch on the arm on a PnR that would standardly be ignored, etc) on a superstar in an NBA Finals game and have him thrown. It gives officials WAY too much power on the game imo. The idea of ejecting players for common fouls is ridiculous to me.
I guess I'm showing my age. Back in the day you got up to 3 fts to make 2, so if you missed in either of the first 2 you got another try. If a player with 6 fouls or more stays in the game any foul could be 3 to make 2 to make a foul almost always 2 points.

Rivera
02-10-2016, 07:23 PM
Personally, I'm very glad. It's a loop-hole way for coaches to try to catch up in games, and imo not in the "spirit of the game". For the "Just make your damn FT" crowd, they can still take solace in the fact that these players can be fouled and sent to the line at any other point that they have the ball in their hands. They'll still be taking/missing plenty of FT's. Some of those Hou/Lac playoff games actually became un-watchable for me. As in, I turned off the TV (as a basketball nut who was pumped for this series) and did something else.

I like Silver.

I have bed saying this for months including the thread I made about this topic. "Spirit of the game" is the phrase I was looking for and that's my point. I agree with everything you said here

tredigs
02-10-2016, 07:24 PM
A technical and possession? That's way too much bonus for a player who can't shoot a ft. So Bogut gets fouled and Curry shoots a ft (still takes time) and then there is a reasonable chance curry hits a 3 so a hack-a-Bogut becomes worse than fouling curry with the ball. Too much.

The point is that nobody would continue to intentionally foul a player off the ball. There's no scenario where it would happen.

tredigs
02-10-2016, 07:30 PM
I guess I'm showing my age. Back in the day you got up to 3 fts to make 2, so if you missed in either of the first 2 you got another try. If a player with 6 fouls or more stays in the game any foul could be 3 to make 2 to make a foul almost always 2 points.

I thought that's what you were saying (2 for 1 like college). I'm pretty sure this was part of the rules they changed when they introduced the 3pt line to the NBA in '81. Completely forgot about that. Yeah, definitely worth consideration.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 07:37 PM
The point is that nobody would continue to intentionally foul a player off the ball. There's no scenario where it would happen.
So if team A is behind team B can have a player running down court stop in front of a rushing team A player (hustling because they are behind) and get a free FT and the ball. That's too much, it breaks the game the other way.

Notice I'm totally discounting the idea of relying on "intentional". I'm not sure but i don't think any current rule is based on a foul being intentional.

tredigs
02-10-2016, 07:45 PM
So if team A is behind team B can have a player running down court stop in front of a rushing team A player (hustling because they are behind) and get a free FT and the ball. That's too much, it breaks the game the other way.

Notice I'm totally discounting the idea of relying on "intentional". I'm not sure but i don't think any current rule is based on a foul being intentional.

You can theoretically do that as is. It's not an issue. The "intentional" disclaimer removes all scenarios where a player is hugged by the defense to send him to the line. That's enough to solve 99% of the issues with a simple fix and is enough for me.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 07:45 PM
Here's my suggestion:

When a specific player has been fouled X amount of times in a game, the team can elect to inbound the ball instead of shooting free throws. X can equal 5 or 6 or 7, whatever.

That would solve every issue.

1. It would allow a team to still hack a guy a few times if they want. And it can even hurt the team being hacked if it happens at a critical moment and Drummond/Jordan can't hit the free throws. So it still places emphasis on players improving their free throw shooting. There's no bailout because Drummond and Jordan and Howard and whoever else could still be detrimental to their team.

2. There would be a threshold in place to keep games from getting out of hand. Once a player is fouled 6 (or 5 or whatever is a good number) times, that team can inbound the ball and save everyone from watching a foul-fest. This keeps the game from becoming ridiculously boring because after X amount of times, the team can just inbound.

This fix would allow both sides of the argument to have their way.
A note: I'm on mobile so this was not on "page 2" ... Had to find it.

First problem with your suggestion is that you didn't limit to off the ball fouls which means James Harden can get fouled, make the shot, and opt for a side out :)

Scoots
02-10-2016, 07:52 PM
You can theoretically do that as is. It's not an issue. The "intentional" disclaimer removes all scenarios where a player is hugged by the defense to send him to the line. That's enough to solve 99% of the issues with a simple fix and is enough for me.
You can't do that now and get a FT AND POSSESSION like you could with your suggestion.

Define "intentional foul" in a way that can be easily officiated.

Also note that this change drastically changes late game tactics for teams that don't commit a lot of fouls and make it to late game not over the limit. Not just hack-a changes.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 07:53 PM
So far the best suggestion I've seen is the side out option with a timed period the fouled player has to leave the game.

tredigs
02-10-2016, 08:04 PM
You can't do that now and get a FT AND POSSESSION like you could with your suggestion.

Define "intentional foul" in a way that can be easily officiated.

Also note that this change drastically changes late game tactics for teams that don't commit a lot of fouls and make it to late game not over the limit. Not just hack-a changes.
An official would never, ever call an intentional foul on a defender who accidentally barged into a stopped offensive player after running up the court. You're making this way too difficult Scoots.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 08:06 PM
An official would never, ever call an intentional foul on a defender who accidentally barged into a stopped offensive player after running up the court. You're making this way too difficult Scoots.
There you go using "intentional" again. I've seen that foul called.

tredigs
02-10-2016, 09:07 PM
There you go using "intentional" again. I've seen that foul called.

You've seen it called randomly once every 15 games. It is a non issue. It would not be a viable tactic that any team would ever use at even 1% of the regularity of the "player hug" foul (you seem opposed to the term intentional. So there you go).

You're making what is an incredibly effective/easy fix sound difficult. It would not be.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 09:43 PM
You've seen it called randomly once every 15 games. It is a non issue. It would not be a viable tactic that any team would ever use at even 1% of the regularity of the "player hug" foul (you seem opposed to the term intentional. So there you go).

You're making what is an incredibly effective/easy fix sound difficult. It would not be.
But drawing fouls is already a common skill. If doing so off the ball gets you a technical and possession it would immediately become a new tactic. I don't think you understand how big that is ... Players being grabbed coming around screens would start flopping left and right for the extra point. The 3 point shot is changing the game and you want to make drawing a foul worth more points to get it to happen less?

The problem isn't the word "intentional" it's the idea that officials have to determine intent on a foul.

By the way players are ejected after 2 technical fouls ... Using your change people will be getting ejected a lot more and drawing bigger fines and being suspended games for fouling off the ball.

tredigs
02-10-2016, 09:52 PM
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEEMED INTENTIONAL! NO REF WOULD EVER CALL THAT INTENTIONAL ON THE DEFENSE!

Dear Lord man. I am done with this thread.

Scoots
02-10-2016, 11:30 PM
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEEMED INTENTIONAL! NO REF WOULD EVER CALL THAT INTENTIONAL ON THE DEFENSE!

Dear Lord man. I am done with this thread.
But no rule that i know of currently requires the ref to determine if a foul is intentional and you have not defined how its supposed to be officiated. If it's only on "hug" fouls players will just stop hugging to foul. The current rule is just off the ball fouls not intentional. You keep saying its simple but its not simple to define a whole new kind of foul and guess how players will take advantage of it.

Kinkotheclown
02-11-2016, 09:24 AM
I'd be okay with 3 to make 2 after the 6th foul.

Interesting twist on that one, what if you set a limit on the specific player being fouled in a quarter after the initial 5.
Lets say "Hack a big fool who can't shoot FTs" works for the first 5 times in a quarter. After that, everyone on the team gets 3 FTs for a foul?

Basically you could foul the one guy 5 times out of the bonus, then 5 in the bonus. Once that 5 in the bonus has been used, the entire team goes into 3 FT bonus.
(Again, you could adjust for the last minute or two of the game if desired)

IndyRealist
02-11-2016, 09:54 AM
Amazingly I agree with Scoots. Intentional fouls are not defined anywhere, so defining a whole new classification of fouls will be difficult. The rulebook reads like a Congressional bill, with caveats and exemptions and all sorts of language to handle specific scenarios. Saying, "intentional" fouls mean the refs have to determine the intent of the player. That is not done on flagrant fouls, for instance. I would say the language was defined specifically to avoid the word "intent".

Scoots
02-11-2016, 09:54 AM
Interesting twist on that one, what if you set a limit on the specific player being fouled in a quarter after the initial 5.
Lets say "Hack a big fool who can't shoot FTs" works for the first 5 times in a quarter. After that, everyone on the team gets 3 FTs for a foul?

Basically you could foul the one guy 5 times out of the bonus, then 5 in the bonus. Once that 5 in the bonus has been used, the entire team goes into 3 FT bonus.
(Again, you could adjust for the last minute or two of the game if desired)
Or just after the 5th off the ball foul for a half regardless of the player. And not 3 fts but 3 to make 2. That change makes it 50% more likely a bad ft shooter gets 2 makes but still allows 10 total a game with 2 ft to make 2. The last 2 minutes rules can be left the same.

That was not what i was talking about but i like it.

On the ft over the back foul it can just be treated as an off the ball foul if the player jumped on does not touch the ball rather than as a common foul like it is now.

Kinkotheclown
02-11-2016, 10:00 AM
Or just after the 5th off the ball foul for a half regardless of the player. And not 3 fts but 3 to make 2. That change makes it 50% more likely a bad ft shooter gets 2 makes but still allows 10 total a game with 2 ft to make 2. The last 2 minutes rules can be left the same.

That was not what i was talking about but i like it.

On the ft over the back foul it can just be treated as an off the ball foul if the player jumped on does not touch the ball rather than as a common foul like it is now.

That makes sense. If you are hacking a guy just standing there, who is essentially running away from the ball, that's an easy call

kdspurman
02-11-2016, 10:07 AM
There you go using "intentional" again. I've seen that foul called.

Idk how you can determine what's an accident and whats not tbh. I've seen it called too, it's usually a foul if there's contact like that.

Dee_Edge
02-11-2016, 10:40 AM
i'm fine with it, then again i'm from houston

Scoots
02-11-2016, 10:58 AM
Amazingly I agree with Scoots.

Hey! :)

Scoots
02-11-2016, 11:01 AM
Options update:

1. Give off-the-ball fouled team the option of side out.
2. FT and possession on off-the-ball fouls all game.
3. Option #1 along with a mandatory "rest" for the fouled player if team chooses side out (you can't shoot your FT, you leave the game).
4. Technical foul and possession on off-the-ball fouls all game.
5. Option #1 but only after that player has been fouled a set number of times.
6. 3 to make 2 after 5 off-the-ball fouls in a half.

I think my preference in order would be 6, 5, 3, 1, 2, 4.

What's your preference? Any other suggestions?

Scoots
02-14-2016, 12:24 PM
What happened to the people passionate about change? No more suggestions?

Saddletramp
02-14-2016, 03:36 PM
What happened to the people passionate about change? No more suggestions?

It's real easy to fix. Side out or foul shots. Give the team the option. All of this "penalty box" stuff and other convoluted stuff is unnecessary.

Scoots
02-14-2016, 05:06 PM
It's real easy to fix. Side out or foul shots. Give the team the option. All of this "penalty box" stuff and other convoluted stuff is unnecessary.

The problem with that is it devalues the skill of FT shooting too much so I don't think that is ever going to happen. There needs to be a more complex solution.

Saddletramp
02-15-2016, 02:45 AM
The problem with that is it devalues the skill of FT shooting too much so I don't think that is ever going to happen. There needs to be a more complex solution.

Free throws are supposed to discourage teams from commiting fouls ("breaking the rules"). In a perfect world, there would be no fouls because everyone would play within the rules. So no, making free throws, or the lack there of, shouldn't ultimately matter enough to turn games into Free Throw Slopfests.

Scoots
02-15-2016, 03:19 AM
Free throws are supposed to discourage teams from commiting fouls ("breaking the rules"). In a perfect world, there would be no fouls because everyone would play within the rules. So no, making free throws, or the lack there of, shouldn't ultimately matter enough to turn games into Free Throw Slopfests.
I agree fundamentally but there are not going to be games with no fouls so lets start with where the game is coming from now, and in the history of the league bad ft shooters have cost their teams something. A simple side out option is not simple at all. If nothing else it radically changes late game tactics because the team behind can't use fouls to stop the clock.

Saddletramp
02-15-2016, 04:40 AM
I agree fundamentally but there are not going to be games with no fouls so lets start with where the game is coming from now, and in the history of the league bad ft shooters have cost their teams something.

Sure, and they still will. Just not as a way for a team to slop up the game by hacking a guy instead of trying to play defense. It's annoying, embarrassing, a time killer and is a slap in the face to the spirit of the actual game. Put the ball in the hoop and when you're on defense, stop the other team from putting the ball in the hoop. If a foul is committed, the fouling team gets penalized. Hack a Whomever is a loophole in the penalty for the fouling team.


A simple side out option is not simple at all. If nothing else it radically changes late game tactics because the team behind can't use fouls to stop the clock.

The last two minutes would stay the same. How is this a hard concept for people?

Scoots
02-15-2016, 08:22 AM
You didn't say that the last 2 minutes would stay the same.

That rule as stated still means that bad ft shooters never have to shoot another ft which goes too far.