Changes to intentional fouls coming?

[JimiCliff]

I've thought about this, and I don't think this will have the effect you desire, nor do you account for potential problems with encouraging refs to judge what an off ball foul is throughout a whole game with the potential to impact it so much. These guys will just get fouled on the ball as much as possible still, and teams will try to find ways to "intentionally" foul off the ball in ways that are hard to call either intentional or off the ball. And refs may have to make very odd off-ball judgment calls on how "intentional" a foul was far too frequently. It may help a bit, but it won't kill the issue that guys can't hit FTs and opponents will exploit that, and yeah, it could cause new problems that don't really help the game.

More rules don't always close loopholes the way people hope. They can also create whole new problems. For instance I can't say I'm a fan of the clear path rule. It's been applied poorly far too many times. And if you hate FTs slowing down the game, you must also hate the endless reviews the clear path fouls cause. Oh, and more reviews might be something to look forward to with knew "hack-a-crappy shooter" rules. That rule change makes far more sense in terms of not rewarding the fouling team for a fuck up, and it's still just got so many issues.

---

Defensive players are still penalized. They get a foul. It's ugly basketball and hard to win that way if you play that style all night. You never get into a rhythm either. You're going to have lots of players in foul trouble. The defender isn't "rewarded", so much as the offensive player punished for lacking a fundamental skill.

James Naismith probably is rolling over in his grave, because a bunch of professionals can't even hit a shot that's a core part of the game and are allowing teams to employ such a strategy. The rule isn't the problem, the players are. As some have pointed out and I have in the past too, they are unwilling to try whatever it takes to get better. A 6'11'' 260 lbs athlete who's afraid it isn't macho to shoot underhanded is pretty fucking pathetic.

There's a reason so many players are against a rule change. It's completely against the spirit of competition, and again, that's what sports are all about. These guys take pride in what they do and want to be called the best. If some guys get to overcome a weakness in their games because the rules let them, and get a competitive edge for being bad at a core skill of the game, that goes against everything these guys are and are supposed to represent. That will piss off every athlete if you love competition. That's stupid. Rules aren't meant to protect flaws in skill either. And they are partly there to protect the integrity of the game, something which would take a big hit if they try too hard to do something about this.

Agree to disagree...

[octothorp]

Honestly, I wouldn't care if they changed it for one only player. It's an exploitation of a loophole that goes against completely against the spirit of the rules: fouls called against a defensive player were never, ever intended to benefit the defender.

A guy gets beat and so he grabs his guy before he picks up his dribble and can go in for a dunk. Instead it's a harmless side-out. That's a foul call that's only an advantage to a defender.
Or fouling your guy when he beats you because you want to make sure that he doesn't go up against your center who's playing with 5 fouls. Again, advantage to the defender.
Fouling a player on a team that's losing by 3 in the last seconds, so that the player can't attempt a 3 and only gets 2 foul shots; also purely to the advantage of the defense.
I think I've even seen a defending team intentionally foul to get a stoppage and make a substitution.

That's just off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's more, all foul calls against the defense that benefit the defense. Strategic fouls by the defense are a big part of the game, and have been for a long time. Are these all loopholes in your opinion that should be closed up?

[JimiCliff]

That's just off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's more, all foul calls against the defense that benefit the defense. Strategic fouls by the defense are a big part of the game, and have been for a long time. Are these all loopholes in your opinion that should be closed up?

It's a really good question, and you're right - strategic fouling has become ingrained in many parts of the game. I think it can be cleaned up in some places. I don't like fouling to stop a fast break; they've kind of addressed this with the clear path foul, but I'd like to see them take it further.

But back to the Hack-A...

Imagine a hockey game. A player is standing on the ice completely apart from the play and an opposing player comes over and intentionally gets a penalty.

Football - a player on the field completely apart from the play is tackled.

Soccer - a player on the field completely apart from the play is tackled.

You never see this, and nor should you, because to foul someone away from the play for an advantage IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS. It runs against the spirit of all team sports. It's something an annoying ten-year would do at recess when none of his peers has the intelligence to articulate why it shouldn't be done.

[Miekenstien]

i hate the idea of changing the rule. doesn't matter how many people are being hacked. it does happen to be the biggest strongest and best down low players who all seem horrid at free throws. so i also propose a height limit of 6"6 on the game. maybe up to 6"8. this will really speed up the game as the players will all be the fastest most athletic on offer. also they can all hit free throws.

[planetmars]

I think the rule can be changed slightly to avoid injury.. because that's what some rules are for. Climbing over the back of a guy so that they get the ref's attention is a bit much. In those specific cases though the refs should call flagrant 1's and let the opposing team get a tech (basically negating the foul anyway).

And again.. there are only 3-4 guys in the league that this rule would help.. that's a big change for a few teams. Does Doc Rivers really have that much power? He's also the one that helped convince the league that division champs should not get an advantage in the playoffs (LAC played the Spurs in the first round last year because of that rule).

[octothorp]

How about counting an intentional foul as two fouls against the defender (if a shooting foul, still just two shots, not 4, but defender picks up 2 fouls, 2 team fouls). That way, you can still strategically foul a player, but you cannot adopt it as a game-long team strategy, because you've got fewer fouls to work with.

[Bendit]

It's a really good question, and you're right - strategic fouling has become ingrained in many parts of the game. I think it can be cleaned up in some places. I don't like fouling to stop a fast break; they've kind of addressed this with the clear path foul, but I'd like to see them take it further.

But back to the Hack-A...

Imagine a hockey game. A player is standing on the ice completely apart from the play and an opposing player comes over and intentionally gets a penalty.

Football - a player on the field completely apart from the play is tackled.

Soccer - a player on the field completely apart from the play is tackled.

You never see this, and nor should you, because to foul someone away from the play for an advantage IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS. It runs against the spirit of all team sports. It's something an annoying ten-year would do at recess when none of his peers has the intelligence to articulate why it shouldn't be done.

Maybe I am dense but would the instigator in any of the examples you cited gain any advantage by fouling in the manner you suggest?. As a matter of fact (if I have the rules correct in those leagues)...a short man penalty would be assessed and possibly ejection from the game alongwith a red card leading to a suspension and fine. Do not see the analogy nor the strategy. In the basketball case both the fouler and fouled are involved in proceedings going forward...both have an opportunity to "punish" the other where it counts...on the scoreboard.

Silver is messing with a competitive aspect of the game. A better analogy is protecting the QB in football from certain tackles. The compelling argument there however is injury because of the nature of the position, his attention in delivering the ball and hence being unable to fully protect himself.

[JimiCliff]

Maybe I am dense but would the instigator in any of the examples you cited gain any advantage by fouling in the manner you suggest?.

My point is that it's completely non-sensical that in basketball you can commit a foul intentionally, away from the play, and use it to your advantage. Rules in sport exist to a) protect/encourage the action of the game, and b) physically protect the players. 'Hack-A' is literally a textbook definition of a loophole in a rule. I'm amazed that so many people have such a hard time grasping this. And - again - thankfully, Adam Silver doesn't. All of you guys with your completely sado-masochistic preference for watching missed free throws, as opposed to actual basketball - well, I guess you're just going to have to find another sport (that allows it's own rules to be perverted)

How about counting an intentional foul as two fouls against the defender (if a shooting foul, still just two shots, not 4, but defender picks up 2 fouls, 2 team fouls). That way, you can still strategically foul a player, but you cannot adopt it as a game-long team strategy, because you've got fewer fouls to work with.

Could work. Another possibility I've heard is that the team that's being fouled gets to choose who shoots the free throws. But my guess is that they'll just extend the rule in place in the last two minutes throughout the whole game - two shots and the ball.

[Miekenstien]

My point is that it's completely non-sensical that in basketball you can commit a foul intentionally, away from the play, and use it to your advantage. Rules in sport exist to a) protect/encourage the action of the game, and b) physically protect the players. 'Hack-A' is literally a textbook definition of a loophole in a rule. I'm amazed that so many people have such a hard time grasping this. And - again - thankfully, Adam Silver doesn't. All of you guys with your completely sado-masochistic preference for watching missed free throws, as opposed to actual basketball - well, I guess you're just going to have to find another sport (that allows it's own rules to be perverted)

i don't get this point of view. the teams are paying the price that the rule allots. that is how bad these "professionals" are at a giant aspect of their sport. if they were able to hit 60% from the line, easy breezy, no team fouls them. it is stupid to change a rule for that. curry is too good for three it isn't fair anymore. no more threes.

the only reason they don't hit 60%+ is because they, the players, refuse to try anything else. so rule change so they can look cool? come on man. it is on the players to make their free throws.

[Bendit]

My point is that it's completely non-sensical that in basketball you can commit a foul intentionally, away from the play, and use it to your advantage. Rules in sport exist to a) protect/encourage the action of the game, and b) physically protect the players. 'Hack-A' is literally a textbook definition of a loophole in a rule. I'm amazed that so many people have such a hard time grasping this. And - again - thankfully, Adam Silver doesn't. All of you guys with your completely sado-masochistic preference for watching missed free throws, as opposed to actual basketball - well, I guess you're just going to have to find another sport (that allows it's own rules to be perverted)

Whoa now! Really? You mean like going to a Nascar race to witness a crash? Basketball includes making FTs. Basketball punishes those who commit a foul. Make the FTs. Make the fouler pay. Or sit down. Simple.

Like I said...to mitigate fouling away from the ball especially at end of close games could do with some tweaking.

Just a disagreement on your preferences...no need to be overly autocratic. I think there is room to accomodate both points of view.

[JimiCliff]

Whoa now! Really?

Bendit, that last part, the part you bolded - that was a joke.

My final word on the subject:

I'm assuming everyone here has played at least a little pick up basketball. If you were playing a pickup game that had free throws (and yes, I realize they almost never do, but indulge me for a moment)...how would you feel if one of the players was getting Hack-A-ed? Would it be at all fun? Would it feel like it was in the true spirit of the game? In the spirit of good sportsmanship? Would you feel good about winning using that strategy? Would you want to go back and play at that game next week?

I know how I'd feel about all this.

[octothorp]

Bendit, that last part, the part you bolded - that was a joke.

My final word on the subject:

I'm assuming everyone here has played at least a little pick up basketball. If you were playing a pickup game that had free throws (and yes, I realize they almost never do, but indulge me for a moment)...how would you feel if one of the players was getting Hack-A-ed? Would it be at all fun? Would it feel like it was in the true spirit of the game? In the spirit of good sportsmanship? Would you feel good about winning using that strategy? Would you want to go back and play at that game next week?

I know how I'd feel about all this.

How do you feel about a team cherry-picking all game long in pick-up basketball? Probably not great about it, for the same reasons as hacking. Should the NBA implement a rule outlawing cherry-picking? Clearly not, because the competitive balance takes care of it. Nobody cares that cherry-picking might be poor sportsmanship. As Sacramento has apparently tried under Ranadive, it can occasionally be successful when used tactically, but is too easy for a well-coached opposition to exploit and guard against; it still happens from time to time. Hacking at the NBA level is the same; it can be a situationally advantageous play, but isn't so effective that it distorts the competitive balance. A good player can compensate by making free throws, and a good coach can guard against it with his lineups. Until it becomes a universally superior strategy, it's neither broken nor in need of fixing.

[JimiCliff]

How do you feel about a team cherry-picking all game long in pick-up basketball?

No problem with cherry picking - it's easily defended, but if you can get those easy baskets, all the power to you.

Btw, you didn't answer MY questions

[Apollo]

I'm a little late to the party but I am against this sort of rule change. Teams did it to Shaq for like 15 years. Dude would have posted like 35PPG some seasons if not for Hack a Shaq. No one complained then except for Lakers fans. So why the hell change it now because Drummond and a few others are embarrassingly horrible at the line? Here's an idea, theyre PRO basketball players, how about the league instead invest time in players who struggle with the most basic of actions: making uncontested shots from the mid range? I mean how hard is it when you got a guy like Kevin Hart tying Draymond Green and almost matching Kyle Lowry from downtown when uncontested?

Factor in the favourable view of the rim for these big men and there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be hitting these shots. The "big men" excuses are OVER when you got guys like KAT and Davis doing everything on the court and guys like Duncan and Dirk before them.

[Bendit]

Bendit, that last part, the part you bolded - that was a joke.

My final word on the subject:

I'm assuming everyone here has played at least a little pick up basketball. If you were playing a pickup game that had free throws (and yes, I realize they almost never do, but indulge me for a moment)...how would you feel if one of the players was getting Hack-A-ed? Would it be at all fun? Would it feel like it was in the true spirit of the game? In the spirit of good sportsmanship? Would you feel good about winning using that strategy? Would you want to go back and play at that game next week?

I know how I'd feel about all this.

Ok on the joke (I saw the smiley and associated it with the last portion of the comment)...but no issues).

Lots of options on the pickup game analogy. First...depends if there was money on the game

Dont want to sound trite but I would ensure my team have good ft skills. If not I wouldnt want to play the other guys again. But this is the NBA we are discussing...and rules should be taken seriously and not changed willy-nilly and to boot for like 3-4 players among all of the teams (think about that...they accounted for 70% of the purposeful fouls). Adjust the rule to the away from the ball hack.

Anyway I think we seem to be pretty entrenched...look forward to what Silver finally decides...I am actually surprised at his position since he doesn't come across as autocratic as the previous guy. That would project that he has a lot of support from within the league on this....and I cannot believe that...haven't heard a positive statement from any one save Doc Rivers. And we know who's on his team.

ps...I cannot recall your viewpoint on why the 3 amigos have not really attempted the Rick Barry method. I believe he has even tried to help.