I'm extremely familiar with the rules. Don't worry about that. I'm pointing out that fouling a guy with the ball, while making no attempt on the ball, is no less of a "basketball move" that fouling a guy 50' from the basket. They each have the exact same intent. Go through the formality of committing a foul in hopes of trading that possession for a more valuable possession on your own end.
If a player has the ball he is part of the play and can be fouled for free throws. If the offense didn't want that player to be part of the play and potentially get fouled, then they shouldn't have given him the ball. On the flip side, the guy who passes in the inbounds, steps on the court and gets touched, is not part of the play.
If a guy is standing on the court, he is part of the play, too. What is your point? Are you going to try and beat this to death over semantics? The bottom line is, if a player is standing there with the ball and another player runs up to him and touches his waist to get the refs to call a foul, that is no more of a "basketball play" than the hack-a-Smith was the other night. It is just going through the motions to get the other team on the free-throw line.
Simplest solution is to use the same rule they use in college basketball... which makes it an intentional foul, and awards the FTs and ball to the team that is fouled. If the NBA didn't see the "hacka" strategy to be a problem... why do they have a rule to stop it during the last two minutes? Why is this strategy "bad" during the last two minutes? Why isn't important that NBA players make FTs in the last two minutes?
Yeah and while we're at it, let's also make college rules apply to shooting fouls. All non-shooting fouls over the first say 2 fouls in a quarter should be 1 and 1. Less time spent at the boring FT line, am I right guys? Rather than thinking of potential alternatives to hack-a, the more important question here is to ask WHY the NBA has not changed this rule? They've implemented a multitude of changes in the past few years. Out of bounds review has been huge, a (albeit unsuccessful) penalty on flopping was implemented, I believe they even changed a rule to reset the shot clock to 5 after a jump ball late in the shot clock. Yet they don't do anything on intentionally off-ball fouling, which makes it painfully obvious that they don't care because the fans aren't making them care.
OK, let's see how fans react to a possible SAN - LAC matchup. Or SAN - HOU matchup. Where SAN continually hacks... Better yet, a HOU - LAC matchup, where both teams deploy Hacka's the entire game. Lets make a complete mockery of basketball...
I want to play the Spurs in round 1. Harden will go nutz and take revenge. Never underestimate the Beard and its prowess in domination.
You know we're not doing anything, right? The only thing we'll be doing is watching the game while the hacking goes on, which again proves my point that the NBA has no pressure to change this rule.
You says it's just semantics, but the NBA disagrees with you. There is a reason the NBA treats on the ball fouls differently than off-the-ball fouls in the last two minutes. Why do you think that is?
Except that people calling the games and everybody on both traditional and social media will be b****ing about it and the rules/competition committee will look at it in the offseason like they have before and will examine possible rule changes. This happened in 2008. No change was enacted beca use it was assumed it would fix itself. Obviously wrong. It will happen again if enough people complain. That's what the NBA does when it enacts rule changes. Too many charging calls? Enact the restricted area. Too much defensive play? Get rid of hand checking. Too many fouls on Wilt? Institute the intentionAL foul rule Basically your entire base assumption is 100 percent wrong within the context of all of NBA history. So yeah point proven.
I figured it out. Simple. If a player is fouled away from the ball in the backcourt they get 2 shots and the ball. Once the player crosses halfcourt (enters the offense side of court) the current rules apply. Done deal. Simple as that. The offense could choose to leave their dud shooter in the backcourt for 24 seconds and play 4-on-5 OR have the dud shooter cross halfcourt with about 8-9 seconds on the clock. The defense would have to chose to position a guy near the dud shooter and foul him when he crosses allowing a mismatch on defense (4 on 4 is easier than 5 on 5). That dud shooter could also fake that he was crossing over then just stay behind the line. If the offense brings the dud shooter over at least they're running clock and get a chance to score (4-on-5) before they forfeit the possession to the impending hack. It keeps things within the spirit of the game because you're only vulnerable once you become an offensive threat. Neither side is overly penalized. If you're a bad FT shooter you still suffer but at least you have a new way to counter and create compelling play on offense. Sounds genius to me. Give me my reward.
I like that idea. I've never understood how a foul on a shooter where a play isn't made on the ball is a flagrant or intentional foul, yet a hack-a-foul isn't also deemed an intentional foul where a play isn't made on the ball. Should be two free throws and the ball. Every time.
I heard this exact proposal from a caller on 790 a couple days ago. So, no reward. But I do think it's a good idea.
Survivorship bias at its finest to prove your point. Handpicking a few rules enacted and then linking them to weak criticism doesn't prove your point. Out of all those things you listed (too many charging calls, too much defense, too many fouls on Wilt), which of them as even come close to the amount of criticism Hack-A has endured? I'll be waiting... In fact, nobody was actively complaining about too much defense before illegal defense was enacted. Can you imagine a bball purist arguing playing clogging paint defense is not in the 'spirit' of the game? How about a rule enacted recently to prevent the hackee from escaping? From 2013 rule modification "A team on offense will lose possession if its player leaves the floor and does not immediately return to the floor, unless he is injured, attempting to save the ball or in other extenuating circumstances." I'm sure there were a TON of people b****ing about how players are running off the court. Oh wait, no we weren't we were all complaining about Hack-a. Will the rule be changed one day? Perhaps, but let's not act like people haven't been complaining about this for the past decade at least. Let's not pretend dozens if not hundreds of other rules have been implemented since the first hack-a-Wilt.
lol. So you're arguing your case that the NBA rules on intentional fouling is immutable and not worth criticizing by citing the hundreds of times the NBA has changed its rules in response to criticism. Did you also first chair Aaron Hernandez defense?
That rule was enacted to prevent players using the bench as camouflage against peripheral vision, there's a cpl teams that used to run plays like that. I honestly have no idea where you got the idea it was for hacking.
No, I'm arguing against your point of "b**** against rule -> Rule change" by showing various examples of recent rule changes that registered lower on the b**** meter. Throughout this whole thread I made to claim that intentional fouling isn't worth criticizing, simply that more than criticism would be required in order for the NBA to implement a change.
Already addressed. Please stop with the apples to oranges comparisons. Slightly more than 1 out of 2 free throws hit, on average, is an insanely low bar and nullifies the hack-a. There was no equivalent "easy, guaranteed" defeat of the 4-corner offense. I guess this is where myself and HardenHardon disagree with all of y'all. Wrapping up DH in the deep post b/c he has wonderful position or immediately fouling (anyone) on an opposing team when you are down by 2 with 20 total seconds left in the game...these are tactical fouls. Tactical decisions. Strategery and stuff. Much like the decision many NFL head coaches take to call a TO just as the ball is snapped on an opposing FG attempt. How's about fouls while fighting for position in the post? Illegal screens? Elbows thrown? Obviously hacking a player right after they pass a ball inbounds is a hack/intentional, but you want to employ stopgap measures that give us a hilariously slippery slope (what the hell exactly will be the line between "intentional/hack" and a "basketball foul?") I have another solution - if an "intentional" off-the-ball foul occurs before the player (Josh Smith/DH) crosses half-court, at that point allow the coach the option of shooting FTs or retaining possession out-of-bounds. It will create a hilarious dunces corner for millionaires that can't hit free throws. J. Smith, DeAndre holding back on the defensive end, not crossing half-court for fear of entering the Free Throw Lava Zone.
