Hack-A-Whoever Strategy

When the guy has the ball, you can say that you are trying to steal the ball from him. Sure intentional foul is not that. But the ball is the focal point of the game. It is always part of the game to get to guy with the ball.

As it has been pointed out, there are plenty of example for "aesthetic" rules. The shot clock is the most obvious example. Even the illegal defense has aesthetic element in it.

It depends on how yo view "aesthetic." It is about making the game more interesting. The end game intentional foul makes a close game interesting. If most people think the hack tactic is interesting (which is not inconceivable), then it will stay.

 

Making the game more aesthetic does make the game better itself.

 

Yeah, Major appears to be playing devil's advocate, but you said it best. The guy with the ball is the focal point.

Besides, the league already distinguishes between on-the-ball and off-the-ball fouls in the last two minutes. The precedence already exists, so that argument doesn't really hold much water.

 

The league decided 50 years ago that intentional off ball fouls were substantively different - is it truly that difficult to comprehend?

 

I know; it's weird he can't comprehend how having the ball is substantially different. I wonder if Major knows that Checking in hockey is only legal when done to the player with possession of the puck, and you can't do it to a player "off the puck."

 

Intentional off the ball fouls should be treated as what they are, non basketball fouls, and should be accessed a flagrant 1

While on the subject of unenforced rules, flopping should be given technical fouls.

There is no fix needed, the rules are already in place, they should just be enforced

 

Or they can make a rule that says if the fouled player makes 70% of his free throws then Greg Popovich has to keep only half a beard and Mustache for the next three games.

 

I smell another non-player. Saying that players should be excused for not being able to hit 1/2 free throws is incredibly ignorant.

Your analogy made me barf. It was that bad.

Apples and oranges, yada yada, different sports (different roles). Next.

To think that guys like Dwight and Josh can't do something, however drastic, to improve their FT% is an infantile perspective.

"You're doing a disservice to yourself, a disservice to your team, if you aren't making these shots," he says. "I can't understand how anyone can live with themselves if they can't shoot 80 percent from the free throw line."
- Rick Barry, career 90% FT shooter (underhanded)

Here's how I know you're whining to excuse home players that are embarrassingly bad at free throws: all fouls do nothing to promote the absolute objective of basketball.

You want to take away off-the-ball fouling or penalize it harder? What about illegal screens (a common foul that is not "intentional")? Shoves and contact on cutters in the paint? Scrambling for loose balls, anyone?

You want to bail out someone that is horrible at a core aspect of the game that everyone playing organized basketball ever is/has been required to do.

In 10 years, if we have a rash of guys that can't dribble more than 2 feet without traveling ("b/c they are so big and uncoordinated"), would you argue for getting rid of the traveling call?

The simplest solution is to make 1 out of 2 free throws. This is already an insanely low bar, and stops hack-a in its tracks.

Shoot underhanded.

No excuses.

Mmmm... I love fruits. Especially...wait for it...



Apples and oranges.

 

duplicate

 

duplicate

 

You can make it sound like it's the most ignorant, off-the-wall thing to suggest the NBA should treat off the balls/hack-a-player fouls differently, but the NBA already excuses players for not being able to hit 1/2 free throws in the last two minutes of the game.

Explain to me how is it ignorant to suggest extending a rule that already exists the last two minutes of a game to a full game?

 

See, I have no problem getting on board with you on that. I've been agreeing with Jeff Van Gundy for however long he's been raving about the lack of consistency on this rule.

Basically, his thoughts are that no one has provided a reason why you only stop off-the-ball intentional fouls for the final 2 minutes. It follows then, without any decent reason, that the game should either allow this sort of fouling for the entire game, or not at all.

"Not at all" in my mind being some variant of the light reform we've spoken of here and elsewhere, something to the tune of allowing the team with the ball's coach to "decline" the penalty FTs and receive possession out-of-bounds w/ 14+ on the clock... or my preferred "reform" where off-the-ball fouling isn't allowed until after a player on offense crosses half-court.

I particularly like this 2nd idea because it continues to punish players for not being able to hit a pathetically low bar from the stripe by creating a hilarious dunce's corner for awful FT shooters.

 

IMO the NBA doesn't care whether a player should be able to hit their free throws or not. The problem is it slows the games down and makes it boring to watch to the fans. That's what I think is their only concern. Boring games = less fans.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I get that the solution to Hack-a is &quot;make your free throws.&quot; But the audience solution is &quot;change the channel&quot; or &quot;go to bed&quot;</p>&mdash; Ethan Strauss (@SherwoodStrauss) <a href="https://twitter.com/SherwoodStrauss/status/593469696705470465">April 29, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

David Blatt on HAP

 

"Hack-a" can work if...

1) FTs are being missed
2) substitutions for "lesser" players are made

There was a reason the Spurs got those extra rebounds last night... because Deandre was watching from the bench.


Regardless, the league isn't calling their own rules correctly.
Intentional fouls = FTs + possession

Nobody would initiate "hack-a" if possession was maintained.

 

I get everyone's thought of make your free throws and this goes away. But the reality is some of these guys can't shoot free throws. So let's take that out of the discussion for now.

My problem is that when a team commits 5 fouls in a quarter they are in the "penalty". My question is why should the team that has broken the rules 5 times GAIN a tactical advantage? You should never GAIN an advantage for founling. But some coaches found the loophole by which you do get an advantage. Personally I think this should be fixed. There are several ways to fix it.

1. Give the fouled team a choice. Free throws or take the ball out of bounds. If a team keeps it up. At 8 fouls its two shots and the ball. I admit this is pretty extreme.

2. Intentional Off ball fouls in the penalty result in a delay of game. Maybe the first occurrence is like any delay of game. It. Is a warning and the fouled shooter simply shoots two normal free throws. 2nd and beyond is a technical foul. Your best shooter shoots the T. Then fouled shooter gets two regular free throws. - I think this rule falls more in line with the spirit of what Hacka-a truely does..... Delay the game.

Overall I am a little torn on this. Part of me thinks make your damn free throws. When I was younger and played I routinely shot 100 free throws (2 at a time and rotated to the next) and would make 97-98 per 100. It's not that damn hard to shoot a free throw. But on the flip side I don't like a team that is fouling to gain an advantage for bad play.

 

Lol Nolium is right, if 5 years from now guys like Due Andre Jordan forgot how to dribble we take away traveling next? How about if they can't stop fouling let's take that away too. Excitement? How about we turn d league into slamball every shot is a dunk no dribbling or FTS required.

Hack an X is a punishment to guys who can't shoot more than 50%. If you can't make 1 of 2 then you deserve to get hacked its that simple.

These guys arent normal people they are PROS, they get millions because they are supposed to be much better than normal people. Can normal people say to the opponent don't foul me I can't hit my FTS? No? Then why the **** are pro ballers allowed to do it?

 

If they foul out of bounds isn't free throw and ball? If so why doesn't the poor free throw shooter jog out of bounds at least let the ball get across half court and set up an offensive scheme in the half court that prepares for the hack-a-whoever?

 

I don't understand this logic. The examples of the examples you brought up REQUIRE the offensive players to be involved in the offensive scheme. You have to have the ball to travel. Off-the-ball intentional fouling is not one of those things.

Outside of the play being a viable strategy or unaesthetically pleasing, the play itself really no longer resonates with a TEAM sport. Along with other reasons, that's why it should be taken out. The current ruleset of the game allows for a player, not involved in the play (maybe 80+ feet from the basket) to be forced into the weakest area of their game.

When you ball, you try to exploit the weaknesses of the other team, sure. But unlike almost every other situation in basketball, your teammates can't cover for you in this situation. There is no different offensive scheme you can run. There is no coaching you can do mid-game to help. The player either makes their FT's or they get subbed out. Millions of dollars aside, every basketball pro has a weakness in their game that is covered by playing within the team concept.