There was no response to be make. We fundamentally disagree. You think the presence of a basketball makes something a basketball play in the NBA. I think throwing a basketball at someone's head is NOT a basketball play. I think fouling someone running around a screen without a basketball IS a basketball play. I'm not opposed to the hack-a. I would actually keep it, because I think it adds strategy to the game. That said, I understand the league might not like the asthetics of it, and that would be a reason they might change it - and I think that's the ONLY reason they might change it. I don't remotely believe they think it's unfair to a player, or that a foul should never give an advantage to the fouling team, or any of the other reasons people think it should changed. And if it was changed, I feel that it should be changed in a way to reward the bad FT shooter as little as possible (thus the front-court-only hack-a option, instead of FT+possession. That's the only discussion I was participating in before you decided that those were minor quibbles and yet worthy of your various rants about me. As it turns out, the league seems to agree - if they really thought it was an unfair rule, they would be more likely to change it. But their concern seems entirely about aesthetics and ratings, and it doesn't seem to be enough to merit major changes. See above for my response. Or you could look at the post that you quoted where where I do point out exactly an idea of a play that is not a basketball play. And it even involved a basketball. As I also said - and I believe you agreed with - the NBA ultimately determines what is and what isn't a basketball play. And they have consistently said, despite given the opportunity to change it, that fouling off-the-ball outside of the last 2 minutes is, in fact, considered a legitimate and valid basketball play. This is a timely example of you reading what you want to read instead of what people actually post. You made up an argument I never claimed, and then tried to debate with me about it. You can see why I might see it as pointless having much discussion with you - this is your regular shtick. Apparently, the NBA disagrees.
And you think hugging somebody off the ball/not involved in the play in order to force a play stoppage and obtain possession IS a basketball play. This is what the hack-a is. It's not fouling people on screens - it's precisely not that because that is what the hack a is designed to avoid - the other team running an offensive play. If the Clippers are running a pick and roll with Paul and Jordan and Spurs try to grab Jordan while he's in the paint, they've already lost. The foul probably won't even be called if the Clippers have the advantage in the situation and Paul can take a high percentage shot if he sees the foul, giving them the chance for and 1. The hack-a is not a basketball play and is further designed to prevent basketball plays from even happening. The involvement of a basketball tends to make something more of a basketball play than not. It is not however, a magical talisman that grants inviolable basketball playness to all who come near - throwing it at somebody's head or pulling down your pants and taking a **** on the ball are acts of a level whereby the presence of a basketball is not sufficient to overcome the actus reus. This is a perfectly acceptable rule system that we apply in many contexts in sports and in life. If you're a law enforcement officer wearing a badge, do different rules apply to you? Of course they do. Does the presence of a badge excuse any and all acts? Of course it does not. So simple question - Is it illogical to insist that somebody fouling a man attempting a shot or dribbling a basketball is more of a basketball play, by a common-sense interpretation of the term, by reason of the presence of a basketball (and also a "play" for that matter) than somebody being fouled without a basketball prior to the play beginning, as most hack-a's are? Rationality indicates it is not illogical to harbor this interpretation. In fact, i'd go as far to say that most people would say it's ridiculous to hold your position that it is in fact a "basketball play" ..with you, which is why Hack-a non-basketball plays aren't legal in the last 2 minutes and haven't been for 50 years, on the grounds that they made a mockery of the game, despite the newfound strategic appeal you have just excavated this morning. The appeal to authority arguement here is effectively useless for that very reason, though the fact that the league itself is routinely inconsistent here for the sake of aesthetics makes your fainting couch act about consistency look particularly hollow.
Wait. How about if someone hacks and it's intentional, you can put whoever is on the floor on the FT line? Wouldn't that eliminate this hack a Shaq all together?
I can't really disagree with Silver's logic. If the issue is only relevant to two teams, why move the whole league? Especially when there really isn't any elegant solution that won't have unintended consequences elsewhere. His logic on why we wouldn't collapse the conferences into a single 16-team playoff is a lot weaker. The travel burden in the playoffs would be less than what teams have to go through for opposing-coast swings in the regular season. In those swings, teams travel from city to city to play new teams each time, while in the playoffs you'd play the same team twice and then go back home. If you can justify 30 regular season games in the other conference for every NBA team, surely we can ask a handful of teams to make the trip to play a handful of games. (Btw, it's hilarious to watch SamFisher and Major have a D&D-style catfight in the Dish.)
That's what happens when people spend too much time in D&D. :grin: Most hilarious is the accusation that the other guy never admitting wrong.
I've been wrong about a number of things. I was wrong with regard to Major's projection that the AIG bailout would pay for itself. He was right, I was wrong - I admitted such. I was famously wrong in the Great Bostjan Nachbar war with DaDakota of last decade - he didn't bounce out of the NBA like I thought but instead had a brief period of rotation player-dom. THere's many other examples.
I agree that there aren't very elegant solutions unless we globally change the way intentional fouls are handled. But his logic is odd. Two teams are subjected to ugly-ball. The other teams aren't. So the rule change would only affect two teams and improve the fan experience for those two teams while the rule change would fundamentally not alter the experiences of the other teams, so... you don't change it. If it will only improve things, and it won't affect teams that aren't making intentional off-ball fouls, I don't see why it won't be considered, but whatever. It's easy enough for me to change channels when I see it (or go to a different website, more accurately). But what if only two teams employed a four-corner offense in the 4th quarter. Would it still have been worth it to try a shot clock solution?
Because it's not just 2 teams. Rockets used it against GSW, (Bogut, Ezeli). They used it against Dallas (Rondo) It's been used against NOH (Asik). It's used against OKC (Adams). I'm sure it's been used against Lance Stephenson and many other examples that I don't feel like looking up.
I think it's a common foul, just like if two players are running down the court and one accidently runs into the other, nowhere near the ball. There's no malicious intent, so it's not a flagrant foul. It's certainly an intentional foul, so it could be called that - but the lines are already blurred there, given that intentional fouls are committed all the time at the end of the games, but are treated like common fouls. You saying it over and over doesn't make it fact, though. You don't think hack-a is a basketball play; I do. They are both opinions. The NBA has mixed feelings - they think it is for the first 46 minutes of a game, and not in the last 2. We're going in circles here. Exactly. That was my point - a basketball being part of the play is neither required nor sufficient for something to be a basketball play. Yes, it is. Because what is and isn't a basketball play is fairly arbitrary. The NBA constantly changes the rules - just look at how flagrant fouls have changed over the years. What is now an excessive and non-basketball play was perfectly acceptable a few decades ago. You and I don't get to determine what is or isn't a basketball play - the NBA does. And the NBA seems to be perfectly OK with a hack-a as a valid NBA play that is called a foul. For the last 2 minutes, they have deemed it otherwise, presumably to make the game more interesting. It was possible that this year, they might deem it otherwise to make the game flow better, but they don't appear to think that's necessary. But the reasons they seem to make it illegal are for entertainment value - not because they think it should be fundamentally unallowed. GMs, ex-players, and Silver all seem to generally agree on this. Those that complain about it don't says its unfair - they simply says its not entertaining.. That's an ... odd ... claim. So the NBA deems hack-a to be a common foul (ie, a normal basketball play) for 46 out of 48 minutes, but that means they think it's a non-basketball play? That doesn't even make any sense. And I mentioned the strategic appeal long ago. I think exploiting bad FT shooters is a strategic advantage for the other team. I talked a lot abut that in this thread. Perhaps it's one of the many things you just chose to not read in an effort to create your strawmen. Except I've never asked for consistency - yet another thing you just made up. I've said the rules of basketball are completely arbitrary and the NBA can decide whatever they want and regularly changes them. The NBA has said for many years now that hack-a is a regular common foul for most of the game. If they thought it was not a basketball play, they could easily have changed that numerous times with all the other rule changes. As you said, there is already a different rule in the last 2 minutes, and extending that to the entire game would be such a simple change. But eEven now, with all the complaining this year, apparently they are sticking to the same view that it should continue to be allowed.
Good job. 75% cases is against 5 players one of which will be out of the league. (Dorsey). Learn to shoot your fts the league won't bail you out.
So basically 1. Hack is a common foul under current rules. 2. Everything that is a common foul under current rules is by definition a basketball play 3. Therefore hack IS a basketball play and should not be changed I"m not going to insult your intelligence by pointing out the error with this approach. It's the approach you just lashed yourself to above. The NBA does many things that don't make sense. Sometimes shots count for 2 points, then they count for 3 and sometimes for 1. Whether or not something is a common foul under current rules is secondary - hacking a man without the ball before the play can effectively begin is less of a basketball play under the plain meaning of the terms "basketball" and "play" than a foul of a man with the basketball in the context of a play. Most would recognize this to be true, now you just say "it's your opinion" that you disagree. So effectively, now you're at DaDakota level of NBA argument.
There is an elegant solution, but the league will never adopt it because it would streamline games and cut into the number of TV commercials. Right now there are fouls in the act of shooting, and non-shooting fouls. The latter result in a penalty after there have been a certain number of fouls. The solution: make it so the team fouled can decline the penalty. In that case, they would take the ball out of bounds, just as they do for any non-shooting foul before the penalty situation. The solution is clean, simple, elegant, and gives the advantage to the team that was fouled. It would get rid of Hack-a strategies. It would also get rid of the ridiculous parade of fouls at the end of nearly every close game, so that the last 2 minutes would take maybe 4-5 minutes, instead of a half hour. And it would cut down on the time outs after every free throw during that time, thus reducing TV commercials. So, its a simple solution and it will never happen.
I can't figure out if you're really incapable of reading, or if you're so desperate to not concede that you wrongly went down a rabbit hole that you keep making up strawmen so you don't have to actually argue with a real person, but this is pointless. I did say #1 and I do believe #2 - I assume you do too since you've agreed that the rules are whatever the NBA decides they are. #3 is a conclusion I never reached - the two aren't related. I said weeks ago, and again yesterday, that I like the rule because it adds strategy and allows teams to exploit players' weaknesses, and that if the NBA understandably wants to change the rule for aesthetic reasons, they should do so in a way that maintains those factors if possible. The basketball play argument was completely separate from whether they should change or not change the rule. It IS a basketball play now - the NBA has made that very clear by allowing it and treating it as a common foul for most of the game, despit having had many opportunities to change it. Allowing a non-basketball play is a fairness issue, and the NBA generally chooses to punish those. This is my last post addressing your random strawman garbage. If you'd like to continue the discussion, try to focus on reading what I've actually said instead of the new version you come up with in your head, and then feel free to engage in a discussion on that. But just from yesterday, you had these gems, and there's no point in continuing with that nonsense: Once you figure out what I've said instead of just making up your own version of it, this might be a more productive discussion.
You guys can keep typing this and ignoring everything that's already been posted in this thread, but we have the entire league history to show there will always be a handful of (mainly) big guys who will never get much beyond 50%. Keep your lovely rule and enjoy all the bricks, but the rest of us will change the channel and wish for a more entertaining brand of ball. Whatever. Still think your crowd should institute rules where a team can make the worst ball-handler on the other team bring it up court, etc. That would be really fun to watch... Spoiler
So now that we are allowing the intentional hug away from the ball (aka Hacka) fouls, lets take a stab at making flops legal. After all... it seems like a good way to defend a better offensive player...
This is logical, and the two brilliant stratagems could actually merge. It's late in the game, you're behind by 7, you find their worst free throw shooter, far away from the ball and the action, and you... ... run at him at full speed and then bounce off of him in a dramatic flop. So either you get a foul called on him, or you send him to the line for a couple of painful free-throws. I mean... who wouldn't want to watch THAT?
You still haven't responded to our claim, backed up by statistics, that poor free throw shooters can and do greatly improve by working on their free throws during and after the season. Not a peep from you regarding Chris Webber, Splitter on the Spurs, Blake Griffin, Karl Malone... And I'm still waiting for an answer from you and SamFisher about whether you'd be ok with "banning" the off-ball intentional foul only before a player on offense crosses half-court. Also, what is it that makes you and Sam make **** up about what Major and myself are "for" or advocate? I don't recall myself or Major ever saying that we love to watch big men clank free throws, yet so much of your ranting basis itself on that very idea. Let me be very clear here: I'm against eliminating the hack-a. Always have been. I also don't enjoy watching free-throw shooting contests (it's an acceptable part of Harden's game simply because his FTs mean more Rockets points). What about this are you not getting?
