This thread is an example of how fans interpreting NBA rules can lead to huge misunderstandings. And more hatred for Harden.
pretty damn strange that people make up their own rule and somehow assume they are right, rather than wanting to find out what the actual rule is.
It looked like a off ball foul. Tuck should've been shooting 2 free throws. The refs are just making rules up as they go, I suppose.
It wasn't clear to me that shooter shoots on any foul. And it wasn't clear to you either, at the time I chimed in. So, I cited what I knew was definitely true. make sense? I even read Ackerman's and Feigen's tweet last night prior to posting, but that wasn't clear, imo, as to saying all fouls result in shooter. When people attempt to shoot at the same time a Hack-a-Shaq occurs, I don't think I've ever seen the shooter go to the line. I recall it merely being a made basket or the recipient of the Hack-a-Shaq goes to the line....with And-1 (as Ackerman describes) should both occur. I'm not 100% convinced Ackerman and Feigen's tweets are clear than all fouls do result in shooter shooting FTs, versus maybe mixing up two rules, so I posted what I definitely know is true. Did you find something clearer than Ackerman and Feigen's tweet.
Sounds like you found the actual rule. Please cite. As I posted above, it's common for reporters to mix two rules together -- Ackerman isn't clear. Maybe there is just one rule for all cases, whereby both "Off-ball with no interference of shooting" and "Off-ball with interference of shooter -- ie another defender or offensive player getting knocked into shooter." are all treated the same. I cited what I know I've seen called -- "Off-ball with interference." If there is one big rule, then I've never seen that called (or reviewed) on Hack-a-Shaq situations, please cite....I'm always interested in learning more.
It is, but then you realize that's all people do on social media anyways, in sports, in politics, in life.
no. their tweets seemed pretty clear to me, but i also thought that was the rule when it happened, and was second-guessing myself until their tweets.
So that's all you know, what they tweeted? I find that not clear. And I've never seen a Hack-a-Shaq, when a player times a shot with such a foul, reviewed. Or any scenario reviewed (to see if an un-interfered shooter was in shooting motion) until last night.
correct...what they tweeted, plus thinking that was the rule in the first place. the tweets seem pretty clear to me...there's no mention of any sort of interference consideration in their tweets. only thing that would make it unclear is adding that to the convo in your mind, when it isn't there. my guess on the hack-a-shaq stuff (yes, harden jacking up halfcourt 3's when capela was being fouled came to mind for me too) is the refs simply don't call those...but wouldn't that rule be the reason they are even attempted?
The only thing I can think was that he pushed him into Harden's landing spot cause he got off the shot before Tucker was pushed into him. Otherwise it was a bullshit call. But the refs were bad the entire game on both sides. There was fouls throughout the game on Harden and espically on Nurkic and Lillard.
What makes it unclear to me is why Ackerman is saying POR was arguing that the foul occurred after the shot. I interpreted that as POR was saying Harden wasn't interfered until after the shot. Hence, they were arguing that the shooter wasn't interfered, and if that doesn't matter, then I guess POR doesn't know the rule. Feigen seems to be agreeing with you here: When a Team argues something during a review, and our beat reporter (Feigen) seems to be saying that doesn't matter, then I'd like to see the rule, out of giving the other team benefit of my doubt equal to our homey reporter. I can't find the rule that says off-ball, uninterferred and interferred, are same thing. And here, when Feigen explains the AND-1 scenario, I find that fits a possible special Hack-a-Shaq ruling that maybe Feigen is erroneously citing: that is, off-ball, non-interference allows the shot to count, but the hacked player shoots any AND-1s, and if it doesn't go in, the shooter still gets his free throws. Whereas in the interference case (which POR is arguing), Harden would get the AND-1. I don't know?? I just would like to see the ruling. anyhoot, in my willingness to give POR's argument the benefit of the doubt, I find this Feigen/Ackerman exchange not clear.
POR is just wrong, their announcers are wrong as well. We know the rule because of hack-a-howard - it's why harden would always tried to shoot a 3 when they did it so he could get 3 free throws. People think that you get 2 shots if you shot while being fouled and miss. But the rules are quite UNspecific - the rules doesn't specify that the foul has to be on the offensive player with the ball, only that a foul against an offensive player occurs during the act of shooting.
Does saying that make your explanation stronger, to say a coaching staff is wrong and our homie, beat reporter isn't, and isn't mixing rules? without citing why? They could have gone into review to see who should be shooting the FTs based upon interference with shot or not. Seems like a Rule 13, Section 1.a.10 trigger to me. (Note: Rule 13 1.a.14 requires a made basket.) Yeah, so? I see this line of debate wrt NBA Rules and Collective Bargaining rules made often. "It doesn't actually specify, so my interpretation can be true." Keep in mind, this went into review, and there are tight rules for triggers, and what can be reviewed under each trigger. Please try to cite what Trigger rule they were reviewing. anyhoot: not clear to me, based heavily on my experience that I've NEVER seen this go into review, if any foul can send shooter to line, combined with POR making that argument about interference was after the shot.
You may be right and I was wrong. After you raised your doubts I did some digging and found a rules clip, and it makes no mention of the scenario when the shot is missed. I think a free-throw is only awarded if the shot is SUCCESSFUL. If it misses it's just a common foul and free throws are only awarded if you are in the bonus. Harden shouldn't have received 3 free throws there. http://videorulebook.nba.com/archiv...ting-non-shooting-offensive-player-is-fouled/
