Football you can do defensive holding or pass interference if you are about to get burned. The penalty is better than giving up a touchdown. On offense in football, teams take delay of games on purpose when trying to punt a team inside the 5. In football, teams take safeties on purpose all the time when the situation arises.
Fix is simple. Once in the bonus give the intentionally fouled team the choice of. A. Free throws B. Taking the ball out with shot clock reset Breaking the rules (which is what fouling is) should not provide an advantage to the offending team. If Silver can't see that then he's an idiot. They change the distance of the 3 point line on a whim after the 94 finals and then changed it back. You can't tell me changing this rule would be any more difficult.
i agree with JVG and A_3PO there should be no strategic advantage for a defender to foul a player without the ball. It should be a harsh penalty throughout the game. Only problem to address would be you'd have to make some rule like football about "not a basketball play.". you have to allow defenders fighting for position or running through a screen to unwillingly foul the offensive player who doesnt have the ball without added penalty so allow the ref to make the judgement call that the defender was making a basketball play otherwise fouling someone without the ball is a technical shot and ball ALL game long vs just the last 2 minutes
Just average 65% from the line and teams won't do it as often. And 65% is aweful. But that's all you really have to do.
welcome to last year's arguments the thread was bumped by recent jvg comments did you hear JVGs comments. He said your argument is about not changing the rules because you dont want to reward lack of skill. JVG counters your "just make your FTs" argument by asking "is fouling a skill. Why are we rewarding a foul" that is not really even trying to make a legitimate bball play
Earlier this week very late in the game at Detroit, Doc made a really smart call against the Pistons. On a 2nd FT (which the Clippers made), he had JJ Redick jump on the back of Deandre Jordan, simulating the fight for a non-existent rebound. Even though it was REALLY obvious what was going on, DJ went to the FT line. Touche Doc. Clippers ended up getting to OT and winning.
It's not a reward because the foul still counts against the player committing it. And technically, making free throws is a skill. If the other team sucks at that skill, it should be your duty to exploit it.
These aren't as analogous as I was hoping to find. Only the first one is a defensive foul, which is what I was looking for. And all three have better analogies to bball than hack a shaq. The first is more analogous to a "clear path foul" in bball, which is a technical foul and shots. All your NFL example says is the NFL might need a harsher penalty for a clear path violation. Certainly the defender doesn't want to get beat and have to make that foul. The Hack a Shaq is not a good analogy. The other two are offensive with better NBA analogies like purposefully dribbling out the clock or missing a free throw. What we are looking for is a defensive foul whereby the intention of the coach is to foul as a winning strategy, and continue doing it. Any other examples in other sports?
Yes, when Howard or DJ are going for an easy slam, foul them instead. Fouling them when they don't have the ball is exploiting a loophole. Fouling away from the ball is not a shooting foul. You don't go to the line, until you get into the bonus. The "BONUS" is not something that was meant to be exploited. Thus, why the league implemented the 2-minute rule whereby it's much harsher to foul away from the ball. If you don't think they are exploiting an unintended loop hole, then we don't agree. To say it is your duty to exploit this weakness I suppose is fine from your side. My side says it is not a basketball play intended to be rewarded, so it needs a harsher penalty to avoid exploitation.
Wait, what? Doc had his own player (Redick) jump on the back of another (DJ), and the refs called a foul on Detroit sending DJ to the line??
JJ jumped on DJ's back shortly after the ball left the FT shooter's hands. Even though the 2nd FT was made and no rebound was available, they called a regular foul on JJ and sent DJ to the line. DJ made 1 of 2 on the other end. Zero time elapsed and the Clippers got the ball back. I expect this strategy to be copied and exploited. The other team doesn't even get the chance to inbound the ball. JVG would have burst a vein if he watched this. I used to think the 2nd FT would to be missed and you foul the guy after he pulls down the rebound. Not so.
^^^ I've seen the strategy of jumping on the back during free throw to circumvent the 2-minute no hack a shaq rule, making a shooting foul vs foul away from the ball. But, I'm still missing something in your description. Redick and DJ play for the same team. Slow down, and explain this to me like I have never watched bball before. Why did DET get called for a foul, when one clipper jumped on the back of another? Did the ref just screw up? Do you mean Drummond somewhere here in the story rather than DJ?
Wait - how did that work? A team can't foul their own player. Otherwise, GSW players could just keep fouling Steph Curry every play and get him free throws.
I never understood how an intentional foul away from the play was not not considered a flagrant foul. It is in every other situation. If you could a player going to the basket and don't go for the ball, it is called a flagrant. I don't see how these types of fouls are any different.
Players frequently intentionally foul a player going for a dunk or layup without getting called flagrant. Flagrant has nothing to do with intent. The word intent is not in the description of a flagrant anywhere -- neither is whether you are going for the ball or not. You can make a play for the ball and still get a flagrant. And you can grab someone's arm or hold down their shoulders to break-up a layup/dunk without going for the ball and not get a flagrant. Further, you can get a flagrant away from the ball, too. Flagrant 1 is simply "unnecessary" contact. Flagrant 2 is "unnecessary and excessive" contact
Except that nobody thinks 3 pointers suck, or that Curry is not fun to watch, really it is the opposite - whereas nobody save maybe Greg Popovich and renowned Clutchfan Major enjoy enduring the hack a.
I see flagrant 1s get called all the time for "wrap up" fouls that were routine in the 90s. Fouling someone off the ball is by definition always "unnecessary content."
