To be honest I'm not against amending the rule but: 1) If you're gonna change give some hard data points for it. Dont tell me its boring and people are tuning out when the ratings are really high in the year of the hack than previous years 2) Make it so guys who cant hit fts above 50% are off the hook. I want guys like Jordan and Rondo and yes even Dwight get punished if they cant hit fts above 50%, in the same way that Hardens gets clowned 5-20 when he cant shoot. It has to work on his 3s because he has to make them in the game but Jordan and Rondo dont have to work on their fts because the opponent cant foul them.
I ultimately side with he argument that fouling away from the ball is outside the spirit of any basketball I've ever played or have witnessed. Fouling the player WITH THE BALL is the only thing that makes sense to me as an observer/fan/purist of the game. Intentional, off-the-ball (particular ones that are 94 feet away from the basket) fouls should be discouraged as much as possible in my opinion.
Of all the silly theories from the pro-hack-a numbnuts, are floating, the theory that there is a "silent majority" of pro-hack-a watchers who are glued to their TV sets might be the dumbest. But you know what? Here's some Rox-Clips ratings Game 5 (very little hack a) 2.3 rating Game 4 (TONS OF HACK A) 1.9 rating Game 3 (very little hack a) 2.2 rating Game 2 (lots of hack a) 2.0 rating Game 1 (moderate hack a) 1.9 rating
One idea that I think is a good balance of forcing a guy to hit free throws and penalizing the intentional fouling team: If an away from the ball foul is deemed intentional, then the coach of the team who was fouled gets to choose which player on the opposing team gets credited for the foul. You could still do it in late game situations if you avoid your own foul trouble, but doing it all game would get your best player(s) fouled out pretty quick.
Morey just said that there is very little momentum for a change. Doesn't seem like anything is going to get done about it.
Lol. So mad. Continually disingenuous to keep shoveling **** that we aren't peddling into our statements. Being opposed to changing the current rules of the game isn't an endorsement of the hack-a at all. I thought it was a r****ded move for McHale to hack in game 6 (or was that 7?) going into half-time when we had a 5 point lead. DeAndre had hit his first 2 FT earlier. We had momentum. The hacks killed momentum, gave LAC free points and the lead going into halftime. Yet again, I'll ask (because no one seems to want to answer): are y'all fine with "banning" the intentional off-ball hack before a player crosses half-court? If not, why?
More hacka for golden state. All the pro hackabros must be excited about this glorious display to young Clint capela about what a lazy non ft hitting b**** he us. **** him. this is what basketball is about. James Naismith is smiling too since he hates swiss chocolate.
Can you start your own forum called "Sam Fisher Thoughts?" I'd read it. Just an old man rambling about whatever, not listening to anyone else. I haven't seen anyone ever suggest they find it exciting or palatable to watch atrocious FT shooters clank free point after free point.
Can you show me where any of us has said, a single time, that we enjoy watching the hack-a? Didn't think so. Keep it comin, jackass.
Not terrible surprisingly, despite the claims otherwise. The league has had numerous opportunities to change it before, and they didn't do so then - they clearly do not see as some egregious violation of fairness or a non-basketball-related play or whatever nonsense people were claiming here. Their incentive to change it is purely asthetics, but as the article notes, the primary beneficiaries are the Rockets and Clippers - other GMs have no reason to implement a rule that's going to hurt their teams relative to those two.
Oh yeah, Major the pretend philosopher coming back with the Ipse dixit nonsense bull**** routine fresh with the stamp of Adam Silver approval. It's not less of a basketball play because Major said it wasn't. Welp, I'm convinced. Random question - while I tend to agree with you more often than not, have you ever once admitted you are wrong on this BBS?
I'm not particularly interested in convincing you, because you're not interested in a discussion. It's no more useful than trying to have a discussion with someone like Trader_Jorge. Once you're confronted, you just start throwing out insults and debating a topic you made up. All the time, actually - mostly in the few rational discussions in the D&D, which is where I post for the most part. But since you tend read what you want to argue with instead of what people actually post, you might not really ever notice it.
You're not interested because you were never able to thnk of a good response. You stated over and over again that while you're opposed to the hack-a, you think the arguments against it don't meet the high bar of rationality you've adopted for your BBS persona. On this particular sub-issue (which is largely unneccasary, the hack a should go because it's not enjoyable, end of argument, but that's for another day) You asked repeatedly what makes an on-the-ball foul more of a "basketball play" than an off-the-ball intentional foul My answer is the presence of a basketball, among other things - an argument that has been propounded to you a number of times: here here here to which you apparently have no response other than to repeat that it's indistinguishable, even though there is a fairly simple distinguishing factor that's inconvenient for MAJOR PHILOSOBOT 50000v2.0 to acknowledge without blowing a few servo-relay tubes. Why don't you just admit you were wrong and that there's grounds that reasonable people can believe that hack'a aren't "basketball plays"? YOu think nothing that happens in a basketball game can be treated as a non basketball play - whatever that means. That's just plain wrong of course, technical fouls, flagrant fouls all sorts of actions that happen on the court are treated as rules transgressions outside the normal bounds (as are hack-as in the last 2 minutes) of what's deemed to be a basketball play. It personally offends you as a dilettante logician, but really it just makes you look like a logical dilletante to bother getting offended - what's offensive is having to watch boring hackfests.
In short... You don't make excuses for just 2 players in the entire playoffs... - Silver - Exploiting a weakness isn't so bad. It's part of basketball. Dwight and DeAndre just needs to practice more. If they can't improve their FT on 100 shots per practice, make it 200 or 300. They're doing more hours in the gym, why can't they also do more on the FT line? If you don't want others exploit their weaknesses, then don't play them.
