'Hack a player' rule change coming.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14719848/adam-silver-says-changes-needed-hack-player-rule

 About time

  swish

Wonder what or how this will be done. I don't really care for it however it's an edge that can be useful yeah it's entertainment and there is an awful lot of money floating out there too.

Have no idea what a solution would be other than shooting about 250 foul shots a day for some players.

beat

beat wrote:Wonder what or how this will be done. I don't really care for it however it's an edge that can be useful yeah it's entertainment and there is an awful lot of money floating out there too.

Have no idea what a solution would be other than shooting about 250 foul shots a day for some players.

beat

http://bkref.com/tiny/dZk4k

Perhaps there is no cure. As you can see from the above link the problem hits the big men the hardest. It dates back to the early years of Russ and Wilt. I wonder how many hours have been spent over the year trying to improve the performances of the above players?

swish

This is potentially a huge problem for the marketability of the NBA, so it is a GIANT problem for the league and must be addressed ASAP.  How many times do you want to shell out big bucks for tickets and have to sit through this strategy?  The game slows way down and quickly gets very boring.  And, I doubt that anyone would debate that "Boring" will soon turn into fewer tickets sold.  Cripes, I even hate watching it on TV and it does not even happen as much (yet) as it may in the future if it continues to prove a successful strategy.

There is a very, very simple solution.   If a team fouls one of these terrible free throw guys when he does not have the ball just let the referees call such a foul what it really is---an "intentional foul".  Let the fouled player shoot his two free throws and then give the ball back to the shooter's team at mid court. Of course, if the bad shooter gets the ball he is fair game for a foul as long as the foul is not meant to injure him.

Defensive teams will quickly have to find another strategy and offensive teams will have to practice keeping the terrible free throw shooter from getting the ball while on the court.

In high school ball, just grabbing another player's shirt to slow him down is an "intentional foul" and is penalized with two free throws and the ball given back to the offensive team.  Once called in any particular game you rarely see any more shirts held.

If the league wants to make fouling some one to injure that player with a more serious (and it is more serious) penalty than just fouling a guy to force him to shoot free throws add a third free throw for the offended team followed by awarding the ball to the offended player's team.

On a side note, I just cannot believe that these very athletic big men cannot be taught to shoot free throws better.  If all big guys could not shoot free throws, I might be able to buy some of these horrific free throw percentages, but when some other big men succeed at near 70% (or better) I have to think that these poor shooting guys have been improperly taught.

I am not in favor of changing the rule because you are now changing for the sake of entertainment verses skill. Hey if you suck at free throw's.......................practice for cry not loud!

This culture of artificially changing the sport to please the entertainment crowd verses the true sports man will cheapen the sport and open a Pandora's box. Suppose it was an accidental foul verses an intentional foul against a usual target to be fouled late in a game....................is it fair to impose an additional penalty on an unintentional foul and perhaps cost a team a championship?

I get very suspicious when I hear the rational behind such a radical move ............We are making Changes for the good of the game.........or is it good for the leagues pocket book and some yoyo who comes to a game every 2 years who has to be satisfied!

It should be ............Start making the players change for the good by making their game better.............by practicing their deficiencies more!

You all know the old saying .......how do you get to Carnegie Hall....practice...practice....practice!

112288

112288

112288 wrote:I am not in favor of changing the rule because you are now changing for the sake of entertainment verses skill.   Hey if you suck at free throw's.......................practice for cry not loud!

This culture of artificially changing the sport to please the entertainment crowd verses the true sports man will cheapen the sport and open a Pandora's box.   Suppose it was an accidental foul verses an intentional foul against a usual target to be fouled late in a game....................is it fair to impose an additional penalty on an unintentional foul and perhaps cost a team a championship?

I get very suspicious when I hear the rational behind such a radical move ............We are making Changes for the good of the game.........or is it good for the leagues pocket book and some yoyo who comes to a game every 2 years who has to be satisfied!

It should be ............Start making the players change for the good by making their game better.............by practicing their deficiencies more!

You all know the old saying .......how do you get to Carnegie Hall....practice...practice....practice!

112288

112288

I've been watching football for 70 years and the penalty plus the ball has worked real well in that sport throughout all those years. Make the change. You can always repeal the new rule if doesn't work out. Its not like this is the 1st major rule change in the game, in fact there have been a gazillion changes over the years. Back in 1954 fans were being bored to death by stall ball. Enter the shot clock and the nba was off and running.

swish

112288,

Swish is perfectly correct in saying that the NBA has made tons of changes over the years, and my original thoughts had much more to do with me not enjoying games where the "hac a player" strategy is used than the NBA making or losing money.

I, like the rest of us, do not get a penny from anyone in the NBA, but we will still have an effect on the league if we do not buy tickets. I can assure you that although I only go to a couple of NBA games a year in person that I will not go back to another game if I end up sitting through a "hack a player" game. Certainly, I cannot speak for everyone, but I really cannot imagine anyone liking this stuff.

No one is right or wrong..................What I am saying is how do you determine who is and who is not a good foul shooter.

The BB strategy that gets hurts the most and is contrary to this hack a player and is a legit strategy in the game is the following:

You are down by 1 or 2 points and you need to get the ball back with little time on the clock to hit a 2 or a 3 pointer to tie or win............and you have to foul to get the ball back. With the rule that is being proposed above...............the team getting fouled gets the ball back and there is no excitement at the end.

So someone may argue.......only enact a penalty if a bad shooter is fouled, ok, who determines who is a good or bad foul shooter to qualify for the special assessed penalty - 80%, 70%, 60%, 50%......
besides, a team with a small lead and the ball with less then 24 seconds left will give it to the targeted poor shooter and if fouled...they shoot and get the ball back!

With that case it is an automatic win and no drama! Remember the dram and win by Miami against SA in the finals.

112288

112288,

I have no problem with fouling any player on the court when the game is on the line IF he has the ball.

The NBA already has a rule preventing the "hack a player without the ball" approach in the last two minutes just to preserve the idea that you can still foul to make a guy shoot free throws IF he does have the ball.

It is the endless fouling of a guy who does not have the ball in, say the middle of the second quarter type stuff (Drummond last week for example) is what I do not like as a fan and even as just a TV fan.

wideclyde wrote:112288,

I have no problem with fouling any player on the court when the game is on the line IF he has the ball.

The NBA already has a rule preventing the "hack a player without the ball" approach in the last two minutes just to preserve the idea that you can still foul to make a guy shoot free throws IF he does have the ball.

It is the endless fouling of a guy who does not have the ball in, say the middle of the second quarter type stuff (Drummond last week for example) is what I do not like as a fan and even as just a TV fan.

So crashing into a legal screen would NOT be a foul?

There is no good way to stop this short of a player NOT being a "Stevie Wonder" on the foul line.
Not sure if the Comish should be tampering with this without giving it due thought with coaches and others with basketball savey.

Sure there have been countless rule changes BUT truly how many of those had anything to do with a strategy to pull out an improbably win.

Shot clock. Three pointer, widening the lane, and numerous others.........this is really gonna be an apples and oranges change unlike anything we've seen IMHO

beat

Beat,

Crashing in to a legal screen would, of course, still have to be a foul, but walking up to a guy like Drummond when he is 30-40 feet from the ball and gently hugging him to force him to shoot free throws is considerably different.

Not sure that I would want my players "crashing" into Drummond every time I wanted to take him to the line? He is a very large man who may not like this idea. Plus, your own players could get hurt just running into such a big person.

Since the NBA already have a rule against the "hack a player" idea in the last two minutes why could they not just expand it to the full 48 minutes.

wideclyde wrote:Beat,

Crashing in to a legal screen would, of course, still have to be a foul, but walking up to a guy like Drummond when he is 30-40 feet from the ball and gently hugging him to force him to shoot free throws is considerably different.

Not sure that I would want my players "crashing" into Drummond every time I wanted to take him to the line?  He is a very large man who may not like this idea.  Plus, your own players could get hurt just running into such a big person.

Since the NBA already have a rule against the "hack a player" idea in the last two minutes why could they not just expand it to the full 48 minutes.

Wide

I have no idea but....I don't like the smell of this potential change.

Many years ago when Marcus played in a youth league with other kids from the school we had parent coaches and I was one. Lots of rules then to "help" the players acquire some skills. No press or pressure in the backcourt and no double teaming straight up man to man (with switching allowed) among other things such as no foul shooting on NON shooting fouls.

Well there came a time we were down a point and they had the ball with very little time left. I had Marcus hack a kid so I could at least call a time out. There were about 20 seconds left and short of a straight out steal we were probably going to loose. So I asked the kids who on the other team would be stupid enough to shoot the ball if we left him open..... I already had an idea and so did the kids so I had Marcus lay off a particular kid and the others put as much pressure on theirs as they could and sure enough William got the ball near the foul line WIDE OPEN and right on cue he shot and missed and I called an immediate Time out. We set a staggered screen near the top of the key with Marcus setting the first pick, he then rolled to the hoop and was reasnably wide open but my hot shot guard came off the second pick pretty open too, Marcus had a left handed layup (he's a lefty0 and the other kid a pretty good loook from 15 feet. He played hero ball and shot instead of making a pass. He missed and we lost but the strategy worked.

I know it's apple and oranges really compared to the rule being discussed I am just not sure that a basic skill that all players should be reasonable at shoule be altered to compensate for their ineptitude. Seems a bit like unbasketballish to me. ( I just created a new word)

We'll see what's in store.

beat

Football is an extremely popular spectator sport even though some games are realistically over before the last seconds tick off the clock. And in those final seconds it is understood by the defense that the only way to get the ball back is to create a turnover. While it doesn't happen very often it sure hasn't affected the popularity of football. Lets give it a shot in basketball. What's so bad about watching 47 minutes of great basketball and then having to come to grips with the fact that in the final seconds it is going to take a near miracle to pull out a win. Look at the bright side. If your team is leading you get to start the victory celebration a few seconds earlier

 swish

Why not make dribbling a matter of choice rather than compulsory? That way we won't all those pesky traveling calls and zone traps. Players who don't dribble well can just walk with the ball away from pressure.


bob


.

I wonder how thrilled Celtic fans (and Philly too) would have been, if back in the 60's, each game between Russ and wilt had turned into off the ball foul shooting contest between 2 of the leagues worst foul shooters? Sit them both on the bench?

Swish

swish wrote:I wonder how thrilled Celtic fans (and Philly too) would have been, if back in the 60's, each game between Russ and wilt had turned into off the ball foul shooting contest between 2 of the leagues worst foul shooters?  Sit them both on the bench?

 Swish

Hell Swish maybe Wilt would have fouled out. Would have been the only time

beat

PS Russ was decent when it mattered and as bad as Wilt was he could still make some esp when he went to the underhand method

beat

beat wrote:

swish wrote:I wonder how thrilled Celtic fans (and Philly too) would have been, if back in the 60's, each game between Russ and wilt had turned into off the ball foul shooting contest between 2 of the leagues worst foul shooters?  Sit them both on the bench?

 Swish

Hell  Swish maybe Wilt would have fouled out. Would have been the only time

beat

PS Russ was decent when it mattered and as bad as Wilt was he could still make some esp when he went to the underhand method

beat

"Hell Swish maybe Wilt would have fouled out. Would have been the only time"

Doubt it beat. He was born a foulee not a fouler

swish

Bill Russell - Why a lousy free throw shooter?

* Brilliant basketball mind
* Coached by a basketball genius
* Played with Cousy and Sharman - 2 outstanding free throw shooters

Yet he never came close to becoming even a decent free throw shooter. HE couldn't figure it out and I assume that over the years he received lots of professional advice from teammates and coaches. So why did he get stuck on lousy? The most frequent advice that I see presented to remedy poor free throw shooting is practice, practice, practice. Did the brilliant Russell ignore the practice routine or are there other unknown factors that enter into the picture?

swish

I am not against fouling a guy who has the ball to stop the clock and make him shoot free throws, but almost gagged last week watching Drummond getting "hugged"/fouled when he was 30 feet from the ball.

There are already some guys in the NBA who do not get onto the floor late in games because they are detrimental to their team due to their inability to make free throws. No problem with these guys having to sit, and if they are on the floor and cannot make free throws they can be fair game when they have the ball, but not when they do not have the ball. BORING

Have Rick Barry show them how to shoot free throws. If you can't learn how to shoot why are you on the court.

swish wrote:Bill Russell - Why a lousy free throw shooter?

*  Brilliant basketball mind
*  Coached by a basketball genius
*   Played with Cousy and Sharman - 2 outstanding free throw shooters

    Yet he never came close to becoming even a decent free throw shooter. HE couldn't figure it out and I assume that over the years he received lots of professional advice from teammates and coaches. So why did he get stuck on lousy? The most frequent advice that I see presented to remedy poor free throw shooting is practice, practice, practice. Did the brilliant Russell  ignore the practice routine or are there other unknown factors that enter into the picture?

  swish

Of course fouling in those days would have meant 3 to make 2, Not sure when that rule changed.


beat

I agree that 2 FT AND the ball for a foul on a player without the ball, would change the practice and probably be good for the game in total.

I like it.

kdp59 wrote:I agree that 2 FT AND the ball for a foul on a player without the ball, would change the practice and probably be good for the game in total.

I like it.

What about legit fighting for position near the hoop, guy starts to go off a pick and you reach.

Not sure this is anywhere near as cut and dried as this option.

beat

beat wrote:

kdp59 wrote:I agree that 2 FT AND the ball for a foul on a player without the ball, would change the practice and probably be good for the game in total.

I like it.

What about legit fighting for position near the hoop, guy starts to go off a pick and you reach.

Not sure this is anywhere near as cut and dried as this option.

beat

I agree with Beat. One free throw plus the ball seems like a fairer option.

I would hope that officials are able to distinguish a situation where a player is an offensive threat and has to be treated as such vs one where he is not a threat and is simply fouled because he is a lousy free throw shooter. On top of that I doubt if any coach would ever put a poor free shooter in a position where there is a legitimate reason to be fouled.

swish