I didn't want to bog down the main thread with this topic, so I made one.
This isn't really about whether it is a smart strategy or not. We can discuss that too.
But I want to know if you think the NBA should change the rules to prevent the Hack-A-__ during the game (off ball intentional fouls).
Here's where I stand. I want them to change the rule. And here's why. I understand the whole "they should just make the FTs," argument. I even understand the argument that it rarely is a smart strategy. I get all of that. But at the end of the day, the NBA is entertainment and I do not find this aspect of the game entertaining at all. It bores me. Last night's Spurs-Clippers game was immensely fun and the moment Pop turned to the strategy in the fourth, the game got ugly. The pace of the game went to a stand-still, the game started to be played poorly, refs were making strange calls (Jordan's not 3 point attempt), etc. Normally, I wouldn't advocate changing the rules for a player's weaknesses, but man oh man does the game become nearly unbearable in my eyes.
My argument in favor of changing the rules is not about anything other than it's not entertaining. The only other aspect of the NBA I don't find entertaining is replays, but I'm willing to sacrifice some of that to get the right calls (though more tweaks are needed). I'm willing to make that sacrifice here. It's just too awful.
My solution: Until 2 minutes left in each quarter, allow the team to decide whether they want to take the FTs or take the ball out of bounds on all off-ball fouls (this would include rebounding fouls, btw). Sure, some teams might still take the FTs, but this allows for them not to and it does not force the refs to make judgments about whether a foul was intentional or not.
Where do you stand?
This isn't really about whether it is a smart strategy or not. We can discuss that too.
But I want to know if you think the NBA should change the rules to prevent the Hack-A-__ during the game (off ball intentional fouls).
Here's where I stand. I want them to change the rule. And here's why. I understand the whole "they should just make the FTs," argument. I even understand the argument that it rarely is a smart strategy. I get all of that. But at the end of the day, the NBA is entertainment and I do not find this aspect of the game entertaining at all. It bores me. Last night's Spurs-Clippers game was immensely fun and the moment Pop turned to the strategy in the fourth, the game got ugly. The pace of the game went to a stand-still, the game started to be played poorly, refs were making strange calls (Jordan's not 3 point attempt), etc. Normally, I wouldn't advocate changing the rules for a player's weaknesses, but man oh man does the game become nearly unbearable in my eyes.
My argument in favor of changing the rules is not about anything other than it's not entertaining. The only other aspect of the NBA I don't find entertaining is replays, but I'm willing to sacrifice some of that to get the right calls (though more tweaks are needed). I'm willing to make that sacrifice here. It's just too awful.
My solution: Until 2 minutes left in each quarter, allow the team to decide whether they want to take the FTs or take the ball out of bounds on all off-ball fouls (this would include rebounding fouls, btw). Sure, some teams might still take the FTs, but this allows for them not to and it does not force the refs to make judgments about whether a foul was intentional or not.
Where do you stand?
I'm fine with it honestly, but if a change needs to be made...
A technical foul(one that doesn't count towards suspension) every time a coach decides to do it. Team can choose whoever they want to shoot the technical, bench players included.
The one point IMO would be enough to offset the potential of 2 missed free throws and the Spurs dynasty would be non-existent.
A technical foul(one that doesn't count towards suspension) every time a coach decides to do it. Team can choose whoever they want to shoot the technical, bench players included.
The one point IMO would be enough to offset the potential of 2 missed free throws and the Spurs dynasty would be non-existent.
The more I think about it, they should just rid of the ability to do it. Instead of excellent defense to settle on a win it's like they've settled for a glitch.
Learn to make your FTs at atleast a 60% level...dudes shooting sub 50% is some sad shit, And this is from a guy who is awwwffffuuulll at the line, you are a pro make an open shot
Isn't part of the NBA's job to put the best product on the floor, though? And this is a bad product. It also lengthens the games way too much, which is also bad.
That's why my argument has nothing to do with player weaknesses. It's about the fans, not the players.
That's why my argument has nothing to do with player weaknesses. It's about the fans, not the players.
The argument would then be, from that crowd, "fans want to see their team win at all costs, even if it means a strategy that delays the game and turns it into a shitfest."
if they do have to change it, make it so you can only intentionally foul the guy with the ball. I'll admit I'm not a fan of fouling dudes without the ball counting...
but then again if you are going to be ass at a basic aspect of the game, you shouldn't be free to just suck either
but then again if you are going to be ass at a basic aspect of the game, you shouldn't be free to just suck either
By etiolation Go To PostLearn to shoot. Teams target player weaknesses all the time.Yep
Doesn't sound like Silver is gonna change it either.
By knux-future Go To Postif they do have to change it, make it so you can only intentionally foul the guy with the ball. I'll admit I'm not a fan of fouling dudes without the ball counting…
but then again if you are going to be ass at a basic aspect of the game, you shouldn't be free to just suck either
Feel like the FT issue is part of a larger lack of fundamentals though. Which is an entirely different set of problems.
Get gud.
Hack-a-whoever doesn't even work sometimes, like The Spurs almost got dick'd when the game went to OT. It's risky, and it should motivate shit FT shooters to practice their shot.
Hack-a-whoever doesn't even work sometimes, like The Spurs almost got dick'd when the game went to OT. It's risky, and it should motivate shit FT shooters to practice their shot.
This tactic is effective because of the rules concerning being over the foul limit.
The suggestion that teams can decide to take the FTs or take the ball out of bounds isn't even a serious choice. Practically 100% of the NBA would take the FTs, because they are free.
Like, why would you ever NOT want to get a chance at the easiest two points that you could score on a possession, with 0% chance of a fast break in transition (you get to set your defense)?
This tactic is only effective against A) a select few key players in the NBA who lack sound fundamentals and B) is utilized by only a select few coaches who have the moxy to make it work.
Is there anyone notorious for the hack-a-________ and is actually successful with it besides Pop?
(This tactic has existed since Wilt.)
The suggestion that teams can decide to take the FTs or take the ball out of bounds isn't even a serious choice. Practically 100% of the NBA would take the FTs, because they are free.
Like, why would you ever NOT want to get a chance at the easiest two points that you could score on a possession, with 0% chance of a fast break in transition (you get to set your defense)?
This tactic is only effective against A) a select few key players in the NBA who lack sound fundamentals and B) is utilized by only a select few coaches who have the moxy to make it work.
Is there anyone notorious for the hack-a-________ and is actually successful with it besides Pop?
(This tactic has existed since Wilt.)
The only other aspect of the NBA I don't find entertaining is replays,
OH believe me, you want replays, or else people are gonna bitch about calls for months or sometimes YEARS
--football fan
By Yurt Go To PostOH believe me, you want replays, or else people are gonna bitch about calls for months or sometimes YEARS
–football fan
Git gud.. the tactics is very overrated anyway, if you look to the usual suspect, they usually on winning team..
Just to play a little advocate, I agree with you that it probably hurts the product, but it doesn't help that the commentators make a big deal out of it to the audience. We don't see it all that often. The problem really exists when hack-a creates a backlog of commercial breaks and gums the machine up when its combined with the ridiculous amount of times out and replays reviews that go on at the end of games.
If you're in favor of the entertainment value of the game outclassing this particular strategy then it isn't a far stretch to ask if you'd like other aspects of the game changed for the purposes of entertainment. For example, steroid testing. I don't want to put out a slippery slope argument without some context, so hear me out. I don't think they should test for steroids. We watch professional sports to see insanely talented gladiators battle and get some of our aggression and tribalism out so it doesn't hurt us in other ways. This kind of release of energy is why the war & military fetishism that exists in the US is so dangerous. But sports are way less dangerous than bombs, so I say let the gladiators battle. What about a 4 point line? Sounds kind of fun, but now we're edging closer to MTV slamball territory or whatever. Maybe that would be more popular? Would it be more fun? Would you like to watch that shit? I probably wouldn't, but I'm just one consumer.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't like watching free throw after free throw combined with timeout after timeout. I don't feel that there are engrossing storylines that emerge from hack-a. When you add times out, replays reviews, and hack-a's together, games can run late into the night where most people can't even stay up to watch them.
All of this is said under the assumption that hack-a is actually an effective strategy which is an unproven premise.
If you're in favor of the entertainment value of the game outclassing this particular strategy then it isn't a far stretch to ask if you'd like other aspects of the game changed for the purposes of entertainment. For example, steroid testing. I don't want to put out a slippery slope argument without some context, so hear me out. I don't think they should test for steroids. We watch professional sports to see insanely talented gladiators battle and get some of our aggression and tribalism out so it doesn't hurt us in other ways. This kind of release of energy is why the war & military fetishism that exists in the US is so dangerous. But sports are way less dangerous than bombs, so I say let the gladiators battle. What about a 4 point line? Sounds kind of fun, but now we're edging closer to MTV slamball territory or whatever. Maybe that would be more popular? Would it be more fun? Would you like to watch that shit? I probably wouldn't, but I'm just one consumer.
I'm not sure what the answer is. I don't like watching free throw after free throw combined with timeout after timeout. I don't feel that there are engrossing storylines that emerge from hack-a. When you add times out, replays reviews, and hack-a's together, games can run late into the night where most people can't even stay up to watch them.
All of this is said under the assumption that hack-a is actually an effective strategy which is an unproven premise.
I agree it's terrible for the product. At times I feel like it should be changed. At other times ... Why shouldn't a guys weakness be exploited?
If you're an athletic freak but aren't very skilled and haven't progressed on that front, it should be exploitable. You should be punished for being a terrible FT shooter. The same way we see offenses exploit guys who aren't athletic defenders by trying to isolate guards on them.
There are other things that i find more detracting from the NBA product, namely the temper tantrums and flopping that remain unpunished. Yet, intentional fouling does detract from the product.
If you wanted to curb it, or cap it at least, you could do with them, what they do with team fouls. Keep a count on them, after 5 intentional fouls in a quarter, 2FT's and the ball. It's a compromise, and may be the most realistic solution.
If you're an athletic freak but aren't very skilled and haven't progressed on that front, it should be exploitable. You should be punished for being a terrible FT shooter. The same way we see offenses exploit guys who aren't athletic defenders by trying to isolate guards on them.
There are other things that i find more detracting from the NBA product, namely the temper tantrums and flopping that remain unpunished. Yet, intentional fouling does detract from the product.
If you wanted to curb it, or cap it at least, you could do with them, what they do with team fouls. Keep a count on them, after 5 intentional fouls in a quarter, 2FT's and the ball. It's a compromise, and may be the most realistic solution.
By RBK Go To PostDo you have a TL,DR version to that post lawlohwhat?Sorta disrespectful.
In an age where there are explicit rules (or at least fines) against flopping, we are up in here trying to make rules for "intentional fouls."
And here I thought the latter were called "flagrant fouls." You know, flagrant as in "obvious," which is a synonym for "intentional."?
Combined with further criticisms concerning the inconsistency of the refs in the game, we are considering introducing more ambiguity into the game?
Adjusting rules in a long-established sport is much more difficult than it looks.
And here I thought the latter were called "flagrant fouls." You know, flagrant as in "obvious," which is a synonym for "intentional."?
Combined with further criticisms concerning the inconsistency of the refs in the game, we are considering introducing more ambiguity into the game?
Adjusting rules in a long-established sport is much more difficult than it looks.
By Zero Tolerance Go To PostIn an age where there are explicit rules (or at least fines) against flopping, we are up in here trying to make rules for "intentional fouls."You drunk breh?
And here I thought the latter were called "flagrant fouls." You know, flagrant as in "obvious," which is a synonym for "intentional."?
Combined with further criticisms concerning the inconsistency of the refs in the game, we are considering introducing more ambiguity into the game?
Adjusting rules in a long-established sport is much more difficult than it looks.
I hate all the uses of intentional fouling because I feel like 90% time they result in no significant change of outcome and just delay the inevitable. Hack-a-shaq is best used to change the rhythm of the game but I'd like to see some analysis to see how effective it is in in influencing the result. I appreciate the added layer of strategy it creates, but I don't feel like its something basketball would miss.
If they gave teams the option to inbound the ball as a result of a foul at any point it would improve the game.
If they gave teams the option to inbound the ball as a result of a foul at any point it would improve the game.
Yeah... intentional fouls are probably all actually flagrants (you're not going for the ball). Just start enforcing that and this problem goes away. On the other hand, it *would* mean the end of every close game wouldn't become a boring free throw fest... wait, that isn't a negative at all.
By RBK Go To PostDo you have a TL,DR version to that post lawlohwhat?Too much information for your brain?
By RBK Go To Post[imghttp://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/86116-At-Least-You-Tried.png
LOL what a retort.....the validation of lawlohwhat's slam, the irony of the image response itself.
By Zero Tolerance Go To PostIn an age where there are explicit rules (or at least fines) against flopping, we are up in here trying to make rules for "intentional fouls."
And here I thought the latter were called "flagrant fouls." You know, flagrant as in "obvious," which is a synonym for "intentional."?
Combined with further criticisms concerning the inconsistency of the refs in the game, we are considering introducing more ambiguity into the game?
Adjusting rules in a long-established sport is much more difficult than it looks.
There are rules against flopping because it became abused, undermined the game, undermined the relationship between player and official, and made the game a worse spectacle. That they're not as enforced as they should be isn't a good thing. And that the temper tantrums of some are more tolerated than others, is also a bad look.
Intentional fouls aren't flagrant fouls going by the NBA Rules. If you started calling them flagrants you'd truly undermine the definition of flagrant fouls and what they're there for.
There's not much ambiguity in the intentional fouling that we're discussing. In a lot of cases players actually notify a ref before the ball is in bounded that they are going to foul a certain guy.
By Vlatko Go To PostIf they gave teams the option to inbound the ball as a result of a foul at any point it would improve the game.
Why? You'd just keep on fouling. The side out rule doesn't really make any difference. If anything, it has the potential to drag it out even longer.
i actually want less time outs and less foul calls. the game has no flow. every 5 seconds there is a break. would be much better than removing hack-a-whatever
By Diprosalic Go To Posti actually want less time outs and less foul calls. the game has no flow. every 5 seconds there is a break. would be much better than removing hack-a-whatever
There won't be less timeouts, great time for sponsor's ads. Welcome to the great world of money dictating sports and not the other way around.
As long as it's something that can be exploited legally, it's fair game in my opinion. Make a rule change.
By giririsss Go To PostWhy? You'd just keep on fouling. The side out rule doesn't really make any difference. If anything, it has the potential to drag it out even longer.Why would you keep fouling? To get a chance to steal the inbound pass? You would just get your team fouled out when you consider how unlikely that is.
I guess the biggest problem with it would be that teams would just be extra aggressive going for steals and and only let a second go off the clock every time.
I don't know what else you could do to stop free throw parades at the end of every game within 8 points.
They were destroying a possible rule change on the radio this morning. I personally am conflicted. DeAndre should learn to shoot a damn free-throw. It's part of the game. An inability to learn that should be able to be exploited.
On the other hand it's channel flipper inducing television.
I'm leaning towards making a rule simply because it would help flow. It does sting that a rule could potentially be made because of a couple bums at the free-throw line though.
On the other hand it's channel flipper inducing television.
I'm leaning towards making a rule simply because it would help flow. It does sting that a rule could potentially be made because of a couple bums at the free-throw line though.
Sometimes rules have to be changed or made as exploits are discovered and the sport evolves. If it must be, it must be.
By db Go To PostThere won't be less timeouts, great time for sponsor's ads. Welcome to the great world of money dictating sports and not the other way around.
true. everytime i want to get my friends in to bball they're like "seriously? what's up with the commercials?". we are used to zero commercials when watching sports.
By Diprosalic Go To Posttrue. everytime i want to get my friends in to bball they're like "seriously? what's up with the commercials?". we are used to zero commercials when watching sports.I'd gladly take ads on jerseys for zero tv timeouts.
I actually kind of enjoy hack a shaq. There's this "fuck you, prove me wrong" element to it thats far more entertaining than any other scenarios where free throws are involved.
I'd love to get rid of free throws based on penalty situations. A guy gets called for reaching and the other team parades to the line...I think thats nonsense. I know you want to disuade teams from fouling too much, but there's gotta be another way. Maybe if a team gets in the penalty the opposing team gets a college shot clock for each foul that happens. IDK.
I'd love to get rid of free throws based on penalty situations. A guy gets called for reaching and the other team parades to the line...I think thats nonsense. I know you want to disuade teams from fouling too much, but there's gotta be another way. Maybe if a team gets in the penalty the opposing team gets a college shot clock for each foul that happens. IDK.
By Diprosalic Go To Posttrue. everytime i want to get my friends in to bball they're like "seriously? what's up with the commercials?". we are used to zero commercials when watching sports.
Futbol fans?
This weekend they say that Pop hates the rule too, but because the NBA allows it, he will continue to do it.
By Zero Tolerance Go To PostFutbol fans?
some are yes. but we have no commercial in tennis, football, ice hockey, ski racing, formula 1, olympics, world cups, etc..
By Diprosalic Go To Postsome are yes. but we have no commercial in tennis, football, ice hockey, ski racing, formula 1, olympics, world cups, etc..
There are time outs in many of those sports, but I get what you're saying. They don't change the pace of the game like in basketball. The commercials in most of those sports come at expected times like change overs/possession, end of sets/halfs/periods.
In football, there are also injury timeouts and "on the field timeouts" for measuring first downs and such.
However, in basketball, each team gets what, 7 TOs each? I have not played a bball game since NBA 95 when I learned most of the rules of the game. Throw in the expected time outs that we get in other sports for end of the qtr and half, and yeah, it can get excessive real quick.
If they could teach Kawhi Leonard, who came out of college not being able to shoot for shit and was only defined by his defensive prowess, to shoot a 70%+ Free Throw Percentage, add a midrange shot, and a developing 3-pointer, I'm pretty sure DeAndre Jordan can.
The Warriors don't even have a Chip Engelland and they're players can do it. As much as I despise the dude, Dwight worked on his shitty FT %.
It's a completely fixable problem by low % players and the hack strategy doesn't even come in throughout a majority of the games. There are a handful of incidents throughout the season and postseason where it's necessary to exploit. Why reward someone who is unwilling to put the work into learning something so simple and fundamental?
The Warriors don't even have a Chip Engelland and they're players can do it. As much as I despise the dude, Dwight worked on his shitty FT %.
It's a completely fixable problem by low % players and the hack strategy doesn't even come in throughout a majority of the games. There are a handful of incidents throughout the season and postseason where it's necessary to exploit. Why reward someone who is unwilling to put the work into learning something so simple and fundamental?
By Shun Go To PostIf they could teach Kawhi Leonard, who came out of college not being able to shoot for shit and was only defined by his defensive prowess, to shoot a 70%+ Free Throw Percentage, add a midrange shot, and a developing 3-pointer, I'm pretty sure DeAndre Jordan can.
The Warriors don't even have a Chip Engelland and they're players can do it. As much as I despise the dude, Dwight worked on his shitty FT %.
It's a completely fixable problem by low % players and the hack strategy doesn't even come in throughout a majority of the games. There are a handful of incidents throughout the season and postseason where it's necessary to exploit. Why reward someone who is unwilling to put the work into learning something so simple and fundamental?
While there are too many factors at play preventing a player like DeAndre Jordan from becoming a Kawhi, I agree with you.
The problem is, the few times when the hack strat comes into play, it is at critical moments of the season, such as when playoff seeding becomes clearer or during the playoffs itself, when there are more eyeballs watching during the last 10 games of the season rather than the first 10 or middle 40.
Combined with how social media has evolved, well, there are more dissenters than there ever was. Fundamentals don't make $$$. Just ask the Spurs.
Ethan Strauss @SherwoodStrauss · 3h 3 hours ago
I get that the solution to Hack-a is "make your free throws." But the audience solution is "change the channel" or "go to bed"
Strauss clearly doesn't understand the audience. The crowd and casuals love a terrible free throw shooter. It's comedy. What they hate is a game with constant free throws and no flow.
I get that the solution to Hack-a is "make your free throws." But the audience solution is "change the channel" or "go to bed"
Strauss clearly doesn't understand the audience. The crowd and casuals love a terrible free throw shooter. It's comedy. What they hate is a game with constant free throws and no flow.
I think NBA players need to learn how to shoot the fucking ball on the free throw line.
But that's just a weird concept, you know, being a basketball player and being able to shoot free-throws.
But that's just a weird concept, you know, being a basketball player and being able to shoot free-throws.
