What exactly is the downside? My stop gap measure is not very harsh and just about the same as yours...it's simply always make the bonus optional for off-the-ball fouls. It doesn't matter if it was an intentional hack or illegal screen. That way the refs don't have to determine whether it was intentional or not. This would get rid of intentional fouls, and the side effect is some non-intentional fouls where a player isn't holding the ball will also result in an option of taking the bonus. That "side effect" actually seems like a good thing too...basically offenses are never penalized for off-the-ball fouls. It definitely doesn't seem like some dangerous "slippery slope".
Only thing close to an ad hominem attack was my charge that your idea of "oh well... there's gonna just be bad free throw shooters, guys that hit <50% are just as normal as your butt brusing when you fall" was dejected and depressing. And that really, really is. I can't imagine any basketball coach ever taking anything but a complete 180 viewpoint from that on free throws. 1. No one is actually trying to shoot underhanded. Can you show me the last time a poor FT-shooting player attempted to hone the craft of the underhanded FT? http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/eye...ting-george-johnson-rick-barry-deandre-jordan Take a look-see there, and then I have to question if anything so radical has been approached by the Rox coaching staff. Doubt it. 2. I'm looking at ESPN right now. There are 5 total players this year that shoot less than 55% at the line. 2 of them belong to our team. I'm choosing that threshhold b/c it's just at, or maybe slightly below, where coaches will start hacking. *I realize I'm only looking at ESPN's "qualified" list of shooters. No, I'm not going to look at the stats list including Francisco Garcia, who shot 4 total free throws this year. You seem to think that we are expecting 80%. Not even close. While I would love to see everyone on the Rockets shooting lights out from the line, the bar is really very very low for Centers. Yao was a blessing. All Dwight has to do is hit 1 of 2. Josh Smith, 1 of 2. And we have 0 evidence or data to prove your theory. When you are shooting such an embarrassing percentage, why not spend hours in practice perfecting, or at least attempting to use, the underhand shot? I'm sure, as fellow fans of basketball, we don't need to discuss the obvious differences between the (simple) mechanics of the granny shot vs. the form and "shooter's touch" necessary for tradidional 90% free throw shooting. I'll agree with that up to a point. In fact, I'll go a step further and agree with commentators (like I believe Matt Bullard?) that argue we should rid the league of the silly charge-on-a-pass call. There are still legit off-the-ball fouls, though, and the slippery slope situation I hinted at before presents too challenging a situation to just label all off-ball fouls as intentional. Do we really want even more reviews of fouls? Now if Duncan sets a screen with his butt...do we need to spend 3 minutes deciding if it's intentional to give Harden 1-2 FT + possession? If Dwight and Chandler fight for positioning every play, how do you determine if Tyson is intentionally fouling him? "I know it when I see it" only goes so far with me in terms of the flow of the game. I think this can be resolved without radically altering the flow/current rules of the game. Or as tedious as Harden shooting FT? I'm just seeing a lot of homerism based around the fact that we have 2 historically bad FT shooters. The norm, as I showed above, is to be able to shoot at a 60+% clip, even for "poor" FT shooters. If that's the case? Yeah, the onus is on them, I believe.
I don't understand....both the type of fouls you mentioned, the player has to have the ball. In the last 2 minutes you can only foul a guy holding the ball or you get shots and the ball. If a player gets the ball deep in the post and gets hacked, he will be forced to shoot free throws if he's in the bonus. The tactics you talk about still exist. Again, we're talking about off-the-ball fouls. I still haven't heard the downside of simply making the bonus optional for off-the-ball fouls.
I can't remember if it was this thread or the other where I agreed with this wholeheartedly. If there is going to be a rule change (I still ofc don't think there needs to be one) this is a solid option. I'm not opposed to this idea at all, giving the coach a choice of 14+ seconds on shot clock + possession out of bounds or FTs on the foul. You could set it up to where FTs would be automatically provided unless the coach steps in and indicates to the ref he'd rather have possession. That way like 90% of the game stays the exact same. I still see it as a bail-out, in a negative sense.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Doc Rivers said he has a "stroooooooonnnnnng" feeling that league will address intentional fouling rules this summer.</p>— Dan Woike (@DanWoikeSports) <a href="https://twitter.com/DanWoikeSports/status/588813045121454080">April 16, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
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 see, so the NBA rules committee in your view apparently makes rules in a hermetically sealed chamber, based on the movements of the comets that populate the Oort cloud, rather than in response to perception and opinions regarding the game itself. Sound logic.
How the hell does that follow at all? What aren't you getting? The rules committee takes things into consideration other than "fan moaning/complaining," is all he's saying. I don't remember there being a huge uproar about illegal defense being called in the 80s/90s, but the NBA saw fit to alter the rules to benefit the game in general, not as a response to fan complaints. Same with the restricted area. Regardless of fan opinion, instituting the restricted area helps prevent injury-inducing collisions around the basket and cedes some space to an offensive player (which makes sense) on his way to the hoop. The logic being that you shouldn't be able to sneak in under a leaping player to take a late charge right under the basket. Does the NBA make changes to make the game more "watchable?" Absolutely, and sometimes I agree, sometimes disagree, with those decisions. Apples to oranges with this free throw stuff. The only reasonable reason you can come up with is "it makes the game boring to watch." Or "it's not in the spirit of the game." While I can absolutely get on board with you on point #2... This can all be defeated by hitting 1 out of 2 free throws consistently. When you learn to play basketball, you learn to pass, dribble and shoot free throws. That is how "core" the shooting of free throws is to the game.
First off, Zone Defenses were outlawed after the very first season of the NBA, back in the '40s, because the NBA needed more excitement. Zones were widely considered to slow down the game and prevent penetration. ii) The whole reason for the 24 second clock many decades ago is proof that many rules are about excitement. C) Illegal Defenses were outlawed due to coaches like Rudy exploiting the rules to use ISO clear-outs all game, because the fans and media were in an uproar over how boring it was. Fans and media are again calling the exploitation of a rule boring and against the intent of the game. So, would you like to use another example to dispute your own argument, again.
You haven't disputed ****. I can just as easily make the case that illegal defense was removed to allow defenses to play proper basketball - that is, allow for easier double teaming, paint patrol (Scottie Pippen used to be perpetually in danger of having illegal defense called on him before the rule change), NOT "fan noise and complaining." There is no reasonable basketball-based reason why teams shouldn't be allowed to play zone defense if they so choose. The restricted area? Anything there but silence? I pointed out 2 excellent and fact-based reasons the league themselves used as justification for implementing the restricted area. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the presser at the time didn't read "Due to overwhelming fan complaints about charges taken under the basket, we have blah blah blah..." Think about the shot clock logically. Does it make any sense whatsoever that a team should be able to perpetually hold the ball? Of course not, that's insane, and the game has clearly benefitted from it. You'll also recall that it was a rule instituted when basketball was in its infancy... you know, when the modern game was still being formed. If the only thing pro sports rules committees cared about was watchability or bandwagon/fly-by-night fan complaints, we'd have nothing but XFLs in all pro sports. The idea that they base all decisions on fan input/complaints alone is ridiculous. Make 1/2 free throws. This all goes away.
After this lackadaisical response I'm convinced you're just trolling now. I get it, you were originally upset after the second Spurs game and wanted to take your anger out on anyone who wasn't for a new rule against hack-a fouls. I know you aren't really so stupid to think fans complaining on twitter will push for rule changes.
Do the rules allow a player to stay out of bounds for an entire possession? Can Smith or Howard in-bound the ball after a score and just stand out of bounds until his defender leaves to go play defense? Yes we'd be playing 4 on 5, but they could do that and probably still score more points than either of those guys shooting free throws.
It's lackadaisical becuase there's nothing else to argue. My position is that in response to the panoply of sources of criticism, the league will take action if it's deemed warranted. Your counterargument, is that this probably definitely won't happen, unless there is a lot of criticism to the point where the league decides its necessary to take action. But otherwise, criticism is useless, because not every bit of criticism results in a rule change, except for when it does, in which case it is useful. But here its' useless, because. I see I have convinced you - thanks for coming over to my way of thinking. How should we work towards this rule change? What medium is best for criticism? I think a youtube video retweeted a number of times of hack after hack after hack on DeAndre Jordan will be a good viral start.
You're right there's nothing to argue because neither one of us is going to collect data points on all the rule changes through NBA history and appropriately measure compliant intensity prior to rule change so let's just agree to disagree on the volume of noise needed to generate a hack-a reform. To address your question in bold, there is not much the fans themselves can do on a rule change. Yes a viral video would be great, one certainly motivated Harden to step up his D. But ultimately it will be up to guys covering and working within the industry like Van Gundy, Bill Simmons, Doc Rivers, Pop, LeBron, etc... collectively making a strong push. Right now that push is not very strong. You'll get the occasional comment, article or tweet from these guys. But if McHale and Carlisle really go to the hack a Rondo hack a Smith/Howard strategy and make a mockery of the game, the push will be much stronger.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Silver: re: Hack a Shaq rules. Some say players should make fts, but it doesn't make great TV. I'm on the fence.</p>— Tom Moore (@tfmoore) <a href="https://twitter.com/tfmoore/status/591298026855124993">April 23, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I like the implication that the players in question could be making their free throws, but just aren't... The players would make more free throws if they could. Jordan can't. A complete and entire focus on only that might make him better, a 50% shooter, but might also make him worse in other ways since he's only focusing on the free throws. I think, inevitably, we will always have periods where there are some players, generally bigs, that are important enough to keep on the floor, and also pretty bad at free throws, making the hack-a's continue to happen. This may be a higher year than average, but it will always be there. To that extent, I'd prefer a rule change... it is impossible to watch.
Just saw this thread and I've only made it a few pages, but the "just learn to make your damn free throws!" is such an incredibly ignorant argument. Some NBA players are not good shooters. They have made it to the NBA because they are elite in another aspect of the game, be it rebounding, blocking shots, court vision, etc. Telling one of these guys to "just get better at free throws" is like telling a QB in football to "just get better" at kicking field goals or a pitcher in baseball to "just get better" at hitting. To think that guys like Dwight and Josh are bad at free throws purely due to lack of practice is a Stephen A. Smith-level argument, and frankly shows an embarrassing lack of basketball knowledge.
So. 1. Changing the rule is rewarding people who don't hit their free throws - lets them off the hook. meanwhile 2. Not Changing the Rule rewards teams for breaking the rules [fouling] - The Free throws are suppose to be a punishment to the fouling team. It is meant to hurt them to discourage them from fouling Since the defense has made the infraction . . .maybe it should be like the NFL The Offense can decline the penalty Rocket River
