When a team fouls at the end of the game to stop the clock, they are getting a tactical advantage. Should that be stopped too? Should the other team be allowed to just take the ball out of bounds? Teams foul to gain an advantage in ever close game right now.
Popovich made a mockery of the game and still lost as the Clips sent him and his team home in the 1st round. The rule will be changed this summer to prevent this from happening in the future.
Since you can only foul the person with the ball in the last 2 minutes, the advantage of stopping the clock can be overcome by the disadvantage of having the ball in a good FT shooter's hands. Also, consider that the person with the ball can draw a foul while getting up a shot. The advantage of fouling in the last two minutes is negated if the offense can plan well for it. Somewhat relevant interesting history note: before this rule Wilt Chamberlain (or any other poor free throw shooters) had to pretty much play hide and seek with opposing defenders in late game intentional fouling situations.
This is the worst post I've ever read. Consider your 'apples and oranges argument' ... THEN dot dot dot You use an apple and an orange in all of your hypotheticals to support YOUR love for watching men shoot free throws. I agree 50% is ideal, but the problem is when a team gets in penalty quick on purpose to foul a bunch before the 2-min rule kicks in, it diminishes the game. I'm not worried about this strategy really affecting us any more this year, but it was really annoying to witness from SA in the regular season. It makes for a boring game. this strategy is LAME.
To add on - SA needed to employ bush-league tactics to compensate for the fact that all their stars have diminished to role players. Leonard is their only star. It's a good way to keep fresh legs. Lol - you don't even have to play defense during the time off-the-ball fouling is allowed. Thats good for the likes of Duncan, Parker & Ginobli.
No, let's not. All you have to do is make free throws. Free. Throws. Free. Points. Even as an ardent opposer of changing any rules to bail out bad FT shooters, I can endorse this option. It still, theoretically, places a sort of philosophical shame onto these atrocious FT shooters. "You mean, I have to take the ball out of bounds instead of getting 2 free points...?" - Coach Thoughts I'm glad you're torn; I think most folks that actually played organized basketball at some point in their lives share this idea that you really should just make free throws, because it's a fundamental part of the game. The only player I've heard in opposition to the strategy itself, or changing the rules to bail out these embarrassments, is (surprise!) Shaq.
Nor should they. You should, because you are a professional, be able to hit 1 out of 2 free throws with consistency from the stripe. The difference being, really obviously, that free throws are, have always been, and always will be a fundamental part of the game, like dribbling. You're completely ignoring Major's point, which is that fouling intentionally at the end of the game stops the clock. Period. This gives the trailing team an opportunity to make up for any made free throws (0-1-2) by jacking up desperation 3s (or quick layups). To the defense at that point, it doesn't matter if it's Steve Nash or Andre Drummond taking the FTs. The clock is stopped. From a strategy standpoint this is completely sound, as intentionally fouling an opposing player in a spirit which has nothing to do with "the flow of the game" has given them another opportunity. T-Mac's legendary 13-point barrage would not have been possible without 2 intentional fouls at the end of the game. And the Rockets won despite the Spurs hitting clutch FTs. Don't put words in my mouth, son. I have no love for sitting and watching uncoordinated bumblers clank FT attempt after FT attempt. Instead, I'd prefer that these professionals do what every single player has done before them, and be minimally proficient from the line. Let's get this out there one more time for all the bail-out supporters: you don't have to shoot 90% from the line. Nor 80, nor 70. You only have to hit 1 out of 2 with consistency, a laughably low bar, to stop/defeat the hack-a strategy. If a coach still hacks you when you hit 55+% from the line...they're doing it wrong: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/intentionally-fouling-deandre-jordan-is-futile/ Get up to 60%? Again, a very very poor number? You're golden, I doubt even Pop or Mark Jackson would touch ya. The traveling thing is apples to apples, kid. FT shooting is as fundamental to basketball as hitting a wide-open pass or taking 3 dribbles successfully without traveling with the ball. Then get outraged at our 2 players that can't shoot free throws for ****. Do what Splitter did, what Chris Webber did, and get into the goddam gym over the summer and pound FTs until your arms fall off. It's muscle memory. DH shoots his FTs with different form almost every shot. That's inexcusable after this many years in the league. “You’re going to the free throw line to get FREE POINTS, i don’t know what you’re getting upset about.” - Reggie Miller
Yes, they are fundamentals and that they should not be removed. Fouling and foul shots have always been a part of basketball. In my opinion, the circumstances are rules in which fouling occurs just could use some tweaking in my opinion. Let's not exaggerate. It does matter who takes those FT's at the end of the game. This is exactly the reason why coaches (when they have the lead) will try to sub in their better FT shooters on offense and better defenders on defense when given the opportunity. It matters. And it matters for much of the same reason that it matters who you intentionally foul off the ball to force them to the line. You want to maximize your point differential between possessions. The only difference is that in late-game situations, you just have less time. I do believe we have a difference in opinion when it comes to "flow of the game". In the last two minutes of the game (when you are going to opt to foul someone who has the ball), any player holding the ball is definitely within this flow. Definitely. You can only score with the ball; you can only pass with the ball. For however much time you have the ball, the defense revolves around you and therefore in many ways, you affect the flow of the game. You are inherently part of the flow of the game when you hold the ball in live play. I'm sure we're both Rockets fans but I think we can also both agree this is more of the exception rather than the rule. Often times, these comebacks don't happen, which leads me to believe sending someone to the line at the end of games is a disadvantage that outweighs the advantage (though arguably not by much) of stopping the clock. Yes, the other team can come back and hit 3's but in that kind of situation, I'm sure the team shooting the FT's getting back on D is guarding the comeback 3 tightly. Both are fundamentals, true. But you can't travel while being 80+ feet away from the basket without the ball. However, you can be intentionally fouled in the same circumstance. I just want to ask something sincerely. I mean I'm obviously "new" here. (Check my post count.) For everyone that feels the hack-a rules should stay in place, why don't people feel that fouling a poor FT shooter in normal circumstances is good enough? For the hostility taking place, I feel like people are acting like they're removing free throw shooting entirely and replacing it with a two-attempt dunk contest where the refs give you 0-1 points per attempt. According to Wikipedia, the rules state that "If the defensive team commits an off-the-ball foul within the last two minutes of the game, the offensive team would be allowed to keep possession of the ball after the awarding of either one or two free throws. Not only does the victimized team maintain possession but it is permitted to select any player they want to shoot the awarded free throw, obviously choosing the most proficient free throw shooter on their squad." If the NBA has chosen to implement this rule in the last two minutes, why not stay consistent and have an updated/polished rule that just stays in place the whole game? I don't know of any other NBA rules (other than replay related stuff) that has a time-sensitive element to it. Anyway, just my two cents, no hostility intended.
You keep talking about "fundamental part of the game." That implies that you believe Hack-a-shaq is a fundamental part of the game? Be honest, were you ever taught to intentionally foul a player who didn't have the ball 90 feet from the basket? You weren't. You were taught to play good defense. If you're really so adamant about fundamentals remaining in tact you should be FOR forcing teams to play defense and not chicken out by intentionally fouling poor free throw shooters away from the ball. 99.9% of all fouls will not be affected by changing this rule. So, you really don't need to be worried about free throws no longer being a fundamental part of the game. Those 0.1% of Hack-a-shaq fouls has an outsized negative affect on the game and is about as "fundamental" and noble as flopping. Would you argue for rules that would preserve flopping? Of course not.
This is nonsense. If it was a disadvantage, the fouling team woudn't do it. The fact that every single team will foul in every single game where they are behind tells you it gives you them an advantage. Your chance of winning goes from 0% (the other team dribbles the clock out) to some small percentage - by definition, that's gaining an advantage. Let's say you're down by 1 with 15 seconds to go. You don't foul, you lose 100% of the time. Or, you foul. The other team makes its free throws. You have a 30-40% to then tie the game. There's no question as to whether intentionally fouling at the end of the game earns you an advantage. If you truly believe a team should never get an advantage by fouling, this scenario needs to be changed.
while we're trying to point out hypocrisy...if the NBA thinks off-the-ball intentional fouls are so egregious and bereft of sportsmanship in the last two minutes of the game that you get to pick your foul shooter and get the ball back, then it shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable strategy the other 46 minutes of the game. That's way more hypocritical than the semantic gotcha you are arguing with gregwho.
Looks like some rule might be put in place to outlaw this next year. http://www.sbnation.com/2015/5/4/8544557/nba-hack-a-shaq-intentional-foul-rule
My talk about free throws has 0 implications about how I feel about anything, be it flagrant fouls, technicals, personals, whatever. I believe that free throws are a fundamental part of the game that every player should be able to perform at a competent level (50/55+%). Again, putting words in my mouth. While this is one of the better arguments I've seen in favor of a bail-out, it still doesn't speak to the fact that this all goes away if players do what they are paid to do - perform. I'm all for forcing teams to play proper defense - in my opinion, that shouldn't be a bunch of suits making up new rules, but rather the players themselves that shoot free throws at such an abysmal clip. The difference between all this other garbage you guys keep throwing out there - not having a shot clock, no back-court violations (over-and-back & 8 second rule), ...flopping, etc. etc. and the intentional foul/hack-a? The hack-a "strategy" can be easily defeated. Make your free throws. There is literally nothing a team can do, a technically guaranteed move, to force a turnover/shot without a shot clock. There is no way for a team prevent Ginobili from flopping all over the court. There is a simple way, a "one neat trick," for Dwight Howard to stop getting hacked - work on his goddam free throws until he's minimally/more proficient.
LOL, Morey trolling. It's good news. At this point I think the chances of something being changed are greater than 50%. Although, I really hope it's not a "severe punishment," because then you get into the whole subjective requirement of refs having to determine whether the foul was intentional or not. That sounds like a nightmare. Just call the bonus optional for off-the-ball fouls. Hack-a-shaq loophole is dead and the game is improved with little controversy.
There's a coaching move they can do, take their player out of the game like what Phil Jackson did to Shaq. You're every PRO has weaknesses in their game, but hitting BELOW 50% fts shouldnt be 1 of them. If hitting fts are so hard why is Yao Ming shooting 80% from ft land, 7'6 he's taller than almost every center who ever played. Tim Duncan, Hakeem, Abdul Jabbar etc these guys are just as tall or even taller than De Andre Jordan and Rajon Rondo how come they can hit fts above 50%? i dont get your point about ever weakness having to be covered by your team, are you telling me when Kobe takes a contested mid range J his teammates are covering for him? How about when Asik blocks a shot is his team helping him block a shot? It may be a team sport but some things you by yourself, thats why there is an assist stat because sometimes your team helps you out sometimes you do it by yourself. I think there should be a skill floor in the NBA, like being able to dribble the ball without traveling or knowing how to make a layup hitting 50% fts shoulf also be one of those, you have no evidence big men cant hit above 50% so why should guys who below 50% be excused?
Your assumption that being tall is the reason they can't make the shot is ill advised. These guys that have difficulty making them have other things in common. One is that they are usually muscular, powerful guys. Another is they have big hands. It's not like these are things they can change. All of which is besides the point. The game of basketball is not and was never meant to be about fouling. Fouling is supposed to be discouraged, NOT encouraged. When teams can get a benefit from intentionally fouling, something is wrong. I'm not talking about fouls in the normal course of the game mind you. I'm talking about fouling that has nothing to do with the normal course of game flow. Anyone who defends this by stating guys just need to make their FT's are missing the point entirely. It's taking the game away from what it was ever meant to be and adds nothing to the enjoyment of the game whatsoever.
This is so arbitrary. Why does a pro player have to hit 50% of his FT? Can we say that if you are a pro player, you have to be able to dribble behind the back? Or dunk the ball? Or if you are 7-foot tall, you have to average 10 rebounds a game? If you can't we are going to punish you by making you do those kind of things in a game that is completely unrelated to the play? I agree that "big players can't shoot FT" is a lame excuse. But that is not the essence of arguing for a rule change. Let's put the "just hit your FT" argument logic on something hypothetical. Let's say, an NBA player should be able to hit at least 25% of uncontested 3pt shots. If you can't it's a weakness that the opponent should be able to directly exploit. So, let's make a rule that the opponent can choose a player of your team to shoot 3pt shots whenever they want regardless of the play. Would you think that's a good rule for punishing teams with poor 3pt shooters?
Silver, is he or isn't he going to do anything about it? Was on PTI and basically said ratings don't go down and he does plan on doing anything about it?
Now I feel like we're splitting hairs but that is NOT an advantage and the comparison you made doesn't work. You can't compare the winning team dribbling out the possession to the losing team playing the foul game. I agree that it gives the losing team a chance to win (and possibly the only chance), but that's not an advantage - the two situations are inherently different. However, you can compare the results of the losing team playing the foul game: 1) when they win from being able to comeback via quick 2's/3's versus 2) when they lose because they are unable to hit those shots. Statistically speaking, I believe the gap widens even more with FT's being made (very high percentage shots) and contested 3-pointers being missed (very low percentage shots in the game). Once again, it does gives you a chance but often than not it just widens or maintains the lead of the team currently holding it. I would not call that an advantage. I have to admit I don't have any statistics or analytics to cement my case but from what I remember from watching NBA games throughout my life, that is usually how it plays out. If you could find and source such a stat, I'd look forward to reading it though.
