Hack-a isn't particularly entertaining, but it's fair since there's a give and take for both teams. The fouling team is hurting themselves with fouls... team fouls (putting the opponent in the bonus), personal fouls (foul outs), and forcing themselves to mostly attack a set defense. If the opposing team doesn't want their guy missing FTs, substitute him or make him practice FTs more.
Its not just crappy FT shooters that "ruin" a good game. Crappy players, crappy coaches, and crappy fans ruin a good game.
No it isn't. I can be called for a defensive foul by fighting for position in the post without the offensive player having the ball. I can be called for a defensive foul by pushing through a pick or screen. Both happen every game without being called flagrants. They are basketball plays. Those are not called "unnecessary content" simply because the offensive player fouled doesn't have the ball, as you say. As for "wrap up" fouls, they are not called flagrant every time either, because "going for the ball" and "intentionality" are not part of the definition of flagrant. Since they are mostly never called a flagrant, the difference is the judgement definition in the rule book for "unnecessary." Same goes for intentional fouls to stop a fastbreak layup well before the player even shoots. It's completely allowed, unless it is "clear path." The intent to foul has nothing to do with whether something is a flagrant. imo, you are using "unnecessary contact" wrong, as evident by what we see on the court, as I describe.
I haven't had too much of a opinion about Hack-A-Whoever until tonight. It ruins the game for the home fans, that's completely unfair. Fans pay lots of hard earned money to watch some good basketball, there is no reason teams should be allowed to ruin games like this with a glitch in the rules. Nobody wants to spend 30 minutes watching 6 minutes NBA time of players missing free throws, it prolongs the game literally up and over 30 minutes, that also ruins people's plans for the night after the game. Its awful and should be taken out of the game. My proposal to fix it but still not reward bad FT shooters is to make a limit to how many times you can hack a quarter. Like let's say a team is only allowed 3 hacks a quarter and if a team surpasses that the opposing team is alllowed to pick the player who shoots the free throws. It doesn't take hacking completely out of the game, it's still a punishes bad FT shooters but it doesn't alow it to totally ruin the night and ehaust/bore the fans by it going on for 10+ minutes.
Another option, each hack takes away 15 seconds off the game clock. That way if you are using it to try to catch up you have to think twice. If you do it to protect a lead, it still at least keeps the game speed going, and hacks in the last maybe 2-5 min in the 4th doesn't take time off the clock.
I don't think this is true. The "Unsportsmanlike Foul" appears to apply to what the NBA calls Flagrant fouls. I see that fans are saying that the Unsportsmanlike Foul rule in FIBA is their hack a shaq rule. What fans say and how the referees actually use that rule appear to be different to me. Here's a wikipedia comparison of Flagrant in the NBA vs Unsportsmanlike in FIBA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagrant_foul The misinterpretation seems to be centered around the wording "not playing the ball." Flagrants in the NBA don't have that wording. NBA just says what is an "unnecessary contact" or not. Neither wording is about Hack a Shaq. The FIBA referee videos discussing "not playing the ball" are about fouling the player who has the ball. Regardless, the Unsportsmanlike Foul in FIBA is most definitely meant to be their wording of what we call a Flagrant. I would love to see reference from FIBA or referees or coaches who discuss how their application of a Hack a Shaq rule. I can't find anybody in the NBA making references to applying something that FIBA applies. Appears like a misinterpretation of FIBA rules by fans.
Completely agree.. It should be flagrant.. It destroyed the Spurs clippers game yesterday which was really fun to watch
Also I found it hilarious when Worell today said that they would go to Dwight sat on the bench and hack him if they could.. Hahaha
Can't they enforce a delay of game violation? Within the definition it says "player or team deliberately stalls the game, usually with the intention of using the delay to its advantage". Had to laugh when Rivers got called for the 'accidental foul' on Harden sending him to the line. Glad the ref called that one as that was just normal jockeying for position and not a hacka.
The fix is pretty simple. Just extend the two-free-throws-plus-the-ball rule (for intentional off the ball fouls) that already exists in the last two minutes for the whole game.
Football has "decline the penalty" option. Soccer has "no foul if the foul does not disadvantage the fouled team" rule. Why can't basketball has something similar. That would solve the problem.
Here's the problem with all these suggestions: If you somehow eliminate the hack-a strategy you are essentially rewarding a team/player for being deficient in a critical basketball skill. For instance if a player is a poor iso defender, the opposing team, if they have a lick of sense and are trying to win the game, will iso that player over and over and over. That can get pretty boring to watch. Possession after possession of that player getting iso'd up. If a player can't dribble the basketball, the opposing team, if they're trying to win games, are going to entice that player to dribble the basketball and then attack his dribble. If a team can't shoot but is good in the paint, the opposing team is going to zone it up and force that team to shoot from the outside. It kinda sux to see a team take and miss shot after shot after shot. We don't tell the opponents they can't zone up. We don't force them to play man-to-man so the team that is bad shooters can drive and finish at the rim. We don't tell teams that they can't choose to force their opponent into the least efficient possession types. If a player can't rebound, we don't give them a leg up by calling fouls against their opponent tighter to account for their poor rebounding. If a team has a player that is a good shooter but a poor defender they have to deal with the player's overall skills and lack-of-skills on the court. They don't get an advantage because a player lacks a skill. When you offer up a solution that advantages a team that puts a poor free throw shooter on the floor that allows them not to suffer from the inefficiency of that player's skill set you are disturbing the balance of the game. You are basically saying that free throw shooting isn't important anymore. And what will happen is all of a sudden the free throw shooting across the whole league will get worse and we'll be looking at more and more missed free throws that aren't a part of the hack-a strategy. That's why my solution is very simple. You can increase the last 2 minutes to the last 5 minutes if you want to. You can extend a 3 to make 2 if you want to after so many fouls like we used to have back in the 70's. But while you do all that there's another piece that you have to implement to maintain balance. And that is if a player's FT shooting percentage is below a certain level (I say 50%), then they simply cannot play when their team is in the bonus. If you don't want to see ad nausem trips to the FT line because of the hack-a strategy, then eliminate the player from the floor. It's simply imbalanced to eliminate the hacking and let all these goof wad sub 50% FT shooters to keep running around with their lack of skill not exposed. That doesn't make for better basketball or produce better future basketball players. It will lead to a deluge of even worse FT shooting as FT shooting is further deemphasized at the HS and junior levels. So I say, any rule changes that penalize the defense for hacking should be accompanied by a rule change that penalizes a player and team for being below a certain acceptable level (I say 50% but you could make it 48% or some other figure that makes sense) by making them sit when their team is in the bonus. Talk about fixing the problem and producing players that have mastered the fundamentals better in the NBA. Making them sit if they are below a certain efficiency at the FT line will do the trick .... fast. All of a sudden these numnut players like DeAndre and Drummond will become decent FT shooters because they will make sure they have the proper coaching and they are putting in the proper work to make them acceptable FT shooters. This is the true hack-a fix. You eliminate hack-a by making it a non-viable strategy because only players with a decent FT percentage are allowed on the court.
I don't think you needed all those paragraphs, basketballholic, to say you are one of the many who favor status quo. JVG has a good counter to "FT shooting is a skill." He said, is fouling a skill? I asked earlier in this thread whether any other sport provides a way to make a defensive foul a strategic play, to the point it's not really even a sports play. It seems to be unique to basketball. Hacking a player without the ball does not provide FTs. You must first be in the BONUS. Being in the BONUS is a penalty for the defense for fouling too much. It was never intended to be used as a strategy for the defense. This rule has been in place for the entirety of the game, nearly. Only relatively recently has it become exploited as a strategy. As Easy points out, Football allows the offense to decline a penalty if it doesn't favor them. Soccer inherently doesn't allow it, either, since fouls are so harshly limited. To add analogies, the clear path foul was implemented recently to prevent rewarding the defense for a non-shooting foul to stop a dunk/layup. Rewarding the defense for an off-the-ball foul was never intended by the rules. That's why they call it the BONUS for the offense. I could see football saying, "The offense can decline that penalty," as Easy points out.
I like the idea of making the bonus optional, or "declining the penalty", but how do we handle the last minutes of close games when the trailing team is fouling to stop the clock? If the leading team has the option to decline, then that entire strategy is gone. I suppose there could be a rule against declining in the last minute, but then the rules are just getting ridiculous.
I just don't like how a tap on Howards back when the ball is on the complete other side of the court constitutes a foul sending him to the free throw line especially when there is so much contact elsewhere on the court. Yesterday for example the amount of contact with Dmo and Blake with the jostling going on but only 1 foul.
That's simple. Under two minute rule could stay the same. Right now you can't foul the person without the ball in the last two minutes; offense gets 2 FTs and the ball back. You don't change that. If the defense wants to stop the clock, they have to foul the player who has the ball. That can't be declined. Alternatively, you can just eliminate the 2-minute rule entirely, and say that fouling the ball-handler cannot be declined. But offenses can decline a foul away from the ball. Easy's idea also fixes the problem that JVG and Stern suggest, which is to make the 2-minute rule last the whole game. The problem with that is there are many legitimate times the defense is fouling off the ball with no intention to foul -- fighting for position, running through picks/screens. The Football "Decline the penalty" option preserves that. There would be no harsh penalty on those unwilling fouls off the ball other than a simple non-shooting person foul. The offense will rarely decline those, because they want to asses the PF on the defender. If we were to institute the 2-minute rule for the whole game, then the rules would have to have a "Not a basketball play" judgement call like Football does. The ref will only assess 2 FTs and the ball if in his judgement the defender was not making a basketball play. Fighting for position and running through screens would still be deemed normal defensive fouls away from the ball, because they are legitimate Basketball Plays.
z Exactly. Nothing changes with on-the-ball fouls. The only change is to off-the-ball fouls in the first 46 minutes of the game. If an off-the-ball foul is committed, that team can decline the penalty and take it out. It's a very elegant solution that doesn't really affect the game very much and isn't convoluted. The only argument I've heard against it is that you could get in a situation where a team would just keep on fouling a Dwight/Drummond player repeatedly on an in bounds play until they get a turnover. Seems unlikely that would happen, but you could just make a side rule that two or more off-the-ball fouls without a change in possession would result in two shots and the ball. Getting a little convoluted though.
