Ask the NBA, who already distinguishes between on-the-ball and off-the-ball fouling in the last two minutes. Or you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq#Wilt_Chamberlain_and_the_off-the-ball_foul_rule
You must find James Harden's game absolutely detestable, then, given how heavily his offense revolves around drawing fouls and shooting from the line. To the tune of 9x per game. "Perfectly rounded" is a lot different than "acceptably adequate in these core, basic functions everyone performs in basketball," which is what we're arguing that 1/2 from the stripe, consistently, is. No one, no coach, expects all their PFs to be able to jack the 3-ball at 35%+. Tony Allens and Dennis Rodmans. Every single player has deficiencies with regards to more specialized roles/jobs in the game of basketball. What y'all still aren't responding to is our charge that because everyone must shoot free throws (sometimes often), just like everyone must dribble the ball, hitting 1/2 free throws is a fundamental, required basic skill of the game of basketball. Dennis Rodman, a defensive rebounding beast, was an awful FT shooter, but still managed to hit around 55% of his (and could've done better than that, surely). Rodman was a liability/weakness on the offensive end of the court, but could still perform basic, required tasks on that side of the ball. Dribbling the ball 3x in a row while moving without traveling or double-dribbling. Passing the ball to a wide-open man without wildly throwing it away. Being physically capable of completing an open layup. Shooting a free throw successfully (at least 1 out of 2 times). I don't. Quit being a goddam ass, putting words in my mouth isn't helping your argument at all. You guys are welcome to encourage some rich fellas that find the current NBA too boring and create an XBA. No free throws at all! 3-point line moved 5-feet in & now there's a 4-point line! Traveling? No prob, you can take 4 setps now as long as you growl menacingly or do something entertaining on the way to the hoop! I exaggerate, but that's so you'll actually get my point. A line has to be drawn somewhere on required, basic skills for the game (we already allow for people that don't know how to play defense...Stoudemire), and this is it with regards to free throws. Aaaaand, still no one. NO clutchfan, arguing or responding to the player quotes I laid down. No response to the charge that coaches and players alike agree with me that the onus is on these clunker FT shooters, not the league, to fix this problem.
Ah, I see you've adopted Cuban's talking point. Of course noone likes watching free throws. Which is exactly why we are saying keep the necessary ones, meaning the fouls that are called as a necessary evil to keep the game from becoming a slugfest. Get rid of the unnecessary ones...the intentional ones away from the ball that are not in the spirit of the game/rules. You keep making all these strawman arguments and putting words into other's mouth that we're trying to bail out poor free throw shooters, increase the traveling rules (huh?). All that is just noise. You're ignoring the root of the argument, which is the only argument to be made. Intentional off the ball fouling is not basketball and was never intended to be a part of the game. Thus, it should not be used as the only way in all of basketball that you can isolate a player's single weakness in such a procedural, non-sporting manner.
Cuban making the same stale arguments that have been refuted 1000x as part of his "must spite Daryl" quest, part XVIII:The Final Chapter, Maybe Welcome to April Mark. After 58 fta last night with more to come, the future of the hack a looks bleak.
The difference is one involves an actual basketball play, the other doesn't. That's the problem. If Dwight, Josh, DeAndre etc are about to dunk, then by all means go for a hard, legal foul(go for the block) and make them hit free throws. That's a legal play, within the actual flow of the game. Hack-a-whoever 80 feet from the basket isn't a normal basketball play. Let me ask you something: if a defender in the NFL bear hugs a receiver 50 yards downfield out of the play, does the team have to complete a 15 yard pass to get rewarded for another team breaking the rules to prevent a big play? No, they would get the ball where the infraction occurred. In baseball, you can intentionally walk a dangerous hitter, but he automatically gets awarded 1st base as a result. He doesn't have to do anything to "earn" that. Yet, in the NBA, a team can break the rules with a non-basketball play, and players have to hit 15 foot shots to "earn" points as a result. I guess flagrant fouls should just be two free throws only because they are non basketball acts as well. Oh wait, the infraction is awarded two shots and the ball.
I hate the strategy and how it slows and screws with the flow of play, but I have little sympathy for a professional player that can't make free throws.
Nobody's asking you to sympathize with them; we're asking you to empathize...with yourself, for not having to watch a silly tactic that is not integral to the game and horrible to watch.
2 things I'd change regarding fouling: - Intentional fouls (hacking) should be treated as 2 shot technical. 2 free throws taken by the team's choice of player + possession of ball - Eliminate disqualification via fouling out. Having to take out star players because of "foul trouble" is the NBA shooting itself in the foot. My suggestion, if any player commits his 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. foul, the other team gets 2 free throws taken by the team's choice of player + possession of ball
I have no idea what Cuban's "talking point" is; is his talking point that it's disingenuous/hypocritical to hate or call it "boring" to watch big men clunk FTs but call it acceptable/exciting/entertaining to watch James Harden hit the line time after time? If so, I'm in agreement that that is hypocritical to enjoy one free throw and hate on another. A free throw is a free throw. Free points. I guess only on internet forums can people put words into my mouth by stating that I'm putting words in other people's mouths. I've never said that any of you hold the opinion that or blatantly stated that "we want a bail-out of poor free throw shooters." What I'm telling you is that your position that the rules should be changed because of these dozen (or less?) hilariously bad free throw shooters is the equivalent of a bail-out of their unacceptable weakness. Can't tell if you're being intentionally or accidentally hard-headed about my point with the traveling rule. Perhaps restating it will get you to actually respond to my point, which is that the ability to dribble the ball 3-4x in a row while moving with the ball without traveling or double dribbling is equivalent to being able to consistently hit 1/2 free throws with regards to both being basic, required basketball fundamentals. I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm telling you that the argument of myself, coaches and (current and former) players takes precedence, which is that poor free throw shooters should take it upon themselves to be able to hit at least 50% (preferably 60-70%) from the line. Even if I cede that the hack-a makes the game unwatchable, boring, or isn't "in the spirit of the game," we differ on how to fix it. Your solution is to change the rules because of a handful of awful free throw shooters. Our solution is to shame these precious few baddies into performing adequately at the line.
There's a big difference between off the ball intentional fouling (which i initially said) and on the ball fouling in general. What about bigs who are bad dribblers? Should they be forced to expose their bad dribbling if the other team 'demands' them to such as when an intentional off the ball foul occurs 80 ft from the basket?
Also what about midget point guards who are bad at finishing, your JJ Barea's and such ? Why should we reward them with easy FT's? They should have to do a 1-on-1 in the paint vs. the other teams tallest player instead of getting rewarded with an easy trip to the line. You don't like it? LEARN TO MAKE A LAYUP, b****. It's not that hard. Just practice you lazy bum - YOURE GETTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
I don't think you need to get super cute and come up with punitive penalties for teams that do an intentional foul. If you want to eliminate it, just eliminate it. Assessing technical fouls seems like an extreme measure. The suggestions I like the best are: 1) Teams can elect side out of bounds instead of free throws for fouls off the ball. 2) 3 to make 2. This suggestion would still leave some room for the "Make your free throws!" crowd to get their pound of flesh sometimes, but coaches would have to think long and hard about whether they wanted to send a guy to the line. I also like Jeff Van Gundy's suggestion that technical fouls should no longer equal a free throw, just a point. Why is it that if you commit some crime on the court that is worthy of a technical, the other team has to shoot to see whether you get punished? You get assessed a technical it should be either a point deducted from the offending team or a point added to the other team.
You don't need any of that. Just take the rule that applies in the last 2 minutes of the game and extend it to the entire game (or last 5 minutes or whatever). Almost no adjustment at all will be needed. Intentional off-the-ball fouls vanish from sight. If you want to preserve the gambling aspect, go 3 for 2 or whatever, though I don't really think the game theory part of it is as compelling to view as it is to write about.
The reason I don't like the last 2 minute rule being applied to the entire game is because, unless I'm mistaken, that rule states that ANY off the ball foul in the last 2 minutes is shots+possession. That just seems super punitive throughout the game where off the ball fouls can happen, unintentionally OR intentionally. If Dwight and his defender are fighting for possession and the other guy gets called for a foul he should get 2 shots PLUS the ball there? I think the unintended consequence of such a rule would be that the refs would let big guys get pushed around even more in the post. I think a simple solution is "foul off the ball equals shots or side out of bounds." I don't really want the whole 3 to make 2 rule, but I see it as a potential compromise that still lets people act holier than thou about big men not hitting free throws.
These are called free throws They are meant to award the player getting fouled yet because we have professional athletes who can't seem to become competent enough to master one of the basic points of the games now it is considered a penalty. Should Soccer and Hockey do away with the penalty shot because there are some players who aren't good shooters there? Heck a free throw should be easier than a penalty shot because there isn't a defender there. This is the type of bizzarro world that we've come to in the NBA where we have to change rules because there are so many players than can't deal with one of the basics. The answer to Hack-a strategy already exists. Hit your damn free throws. Other players like Tim Duncan who used to be subject to the Hack-a strategy improved their free throw shooting and subsequently teams didn't use that strategy against them.
I think baseball should have a rule. The pitching team should be allowed to call for an intentional home run at bat and force the player at the plate to either a hit a home run or be called out. Hitting a homerun is part of the game, and if they can't do it then they need to learn how to hit them!
