khans2k5 wrote:I don't think they would make the change just to cover up a player weakness. They would make it because it slows games to a halt and hurts their watchability. People don't want to watch 50-60 free throw games regardless if they are hack a shaq free throws or regular free throws. The rule has been in place since Wilt Chamberlain was in the league so why would players all of a sudden become good free throw shooters now? It's like the 5 foul rule in college. At times it keeps some of the best players in the league off the floor. How is that good for the league? They took away hand checking so why not intentional off-ball fouls? Dribbling and movement are inherent basketball skills everyone should have and yet they did away with a defensive strategy that made life hard for ball handlers and off-ball movement.
You can try to twist it however you'd like but the root cause is players inability to hit free throws. If the league makes a rule that doesn't allow a poor free throw shooter to be put on the line then the fact is they have created a rule to cover up that weakness. You can try to mask it with excuses of slow play or watchability but the fact that the rule will benefit poor free throw shooters is undeniable.
The rule isn't taking anything away but a gimmick. Fouling a guy nowhere near the ball isn't basketball. Foul him when he gets the ball. The rule change would be so you can't just pick who you want to take free throws whenever you want. You'd actually have to foul the guy with the ball. If the guy can't touch the ball because you're going to foul him right away you're taking away an offensive option anyway. If it's not ok in the last 2 minutes of games why should it be allowed the rest of the game? You either make it a rule for the whole game or allow it for the whole game. It makes no sense to have the rule only apply to part of the game.
Do my eyes deceive me!? 28 FTAs for DJ in the first half. I think the hack-a-(name your player) is a savvy strategy at times, but none of these guys will have any fouls to give when they really might need it in the 4th quarter. Crazy.
Not sure what the rule is today, but I think you simply handle any "intentional foul" in 1 of 2 ways: 1) Fouled player gets 1 FT and team gets the ball back; 2) Fouled team picks FT shooter for 2 shots. You could potentially make an exception in both cases for the last 2 minutes of half and game and allow hack-a-shaq strategy.
Look, I get the point of putting the onus of players to get better. But the reality here is that an "intentional foul" is not a basketball play. I have never agreed with this call and have always thought it a wierd strategy to allow. A foul in the process of the game is fine, but an intentional foul should be treated differently.
Hicks123 wrote:Not sure what the rule is today, but I think you simply handle any "intentional foul" in 1 of 2 ways: 1) Fouled player gets 1 FT and team gets the ball back; 2) Fouled team picks FT shooter for 2 shots. You could potentially make an exception in both cases for the last 2 minutes of half and game and allow hack-a-shaq strategy.
Look, I get the point of putting the onus of players to get better. But the reality here is that an "intentional foul" is not a basketball play. I have never agreed with this call and have always thought it a wierd strategy to allow. A foul in the process of the game is fine, but an intentional foul should be treated differently.
I hate that strategy too and find it extremely lame and cheesy. The 1 FT and the ball idea is really intriguing actually and I think that would be interesting to see outside of the final 2 minutes of each half or all non shooting fouls over the penalty. Guys are handed "in the act of shooting" fouls too easily anyway.
Hicks123 wrote:Not sure what the rule is today, but I think you simply handle any "intentional foul" in 1 of 2 ways: 1) Fouled player gets 1 FT and team gets the ball back; 2) Fouled team picks FT shooter for 2 shots. You could potentially make an exception in both cases for the last 2 minutes of half and game and allow hack-a-shaq strategy.
Look, I get the point of putting the onus of players to get better. But the reality here is that an "intentional foul" is not a basketball play. I have never agreed with this call and have always thought it a wierd strategy to allow. A foul in the process of the game is fine, but an intentional foul should be treated differently.
I hate that strategy too and find it extremely lame and cheesy. The 1 FT and the ball idea is really intriguing actually and I think that would be interesting to see outside of the final 2 minutes of each half or all non shooting fouls over the penalty. Guys are handed "in the act of shooting" fouls too easily anyway.
Totally agree with the act of shooting calls. If you aren't shooting or laying it in you shouldn't get free throws.
TRKO wrote:
Totally agree with the act of shooting calls. If you aren't shooting or laying it in you shouldn't get free throws.
Exactly. I'm tired of seeing them give guys FTs for simply gathering themselves in preparation for taking a shot. Either they're shooting or they are not.
khans2k5 wrote:I don't think they would make the change just to cover up a player weakness. They would make it because it slows games to a halt and hurts their watchability. People don't want to watch 50-60 free throw games regardless if they are hack a shaq free throws or regular free throws. The rule has been in place since Wilt Chamberlain was in the league so why would players all of a sudden become good free throw shooters now? It's like the 5 foul rule in college. At times it keeps some of the best players in the league off the floor. How is that good for the league? They took away hand checking so why not intentional off-ball fouls? Dribbling and movement are inherent basketball skills everyone should have and yet they did away with a defensive strategy that made life hard for ball handlers and off-ball movement.
You can try to twist it however you'd like but the root cause is players inability to hit free throws. If the league makes a rule that doesn't allow a poor free throw shooter to be put on the line then the fact is they have created a rule to cover up that weakness. You can try to mask it with excuses of slow play or watchability but the fact that the rule will benefit poor free throw shooters is undeniable.
The rule isn't taking anything away but a gimmick. Fouling a guy nowhere near the ball isn't basketball. Foul him when he gets the ball. The rule change would be so you can't just pick who you want to take free throws whenever you want. You'd actually have to foul the guy with the ball. If the guy can't touch the ball because you're going to foul him right away you're taking away an offensive option anyway. If it's not ok in the last 2 minutes of games why should it be allowed the rest of the game? You either make it a rule for the whole game or allow it for the whole game. It makes no sense to have the rule only apply to part of the game.
So you're saying every foul when someone doesn't have the ball would be considered intentional? They might as well remove defense and the regular season could look just like the all star game. There would be no more battles in the post for position or guys fighting through screens for fear of fouling someone without the ball.
khans2k5 wrote:I don't think they would make the change just to cover up a player weakness. They would make it because it slows games to a halt and hurts their watchability. People don't want to watch 50-60 free throw games regardless if they are hack a shaq free throws or regular free throws. The rule has been in place since Wilt Chamberlain was in the league so why would players all of a sudden become good free throw shooters now? It's like the 5 foul rule in college. At times it keeps some of the best players in the league off the floor. How is that good for the league? They took away hand checking so why not intentional off-ball fouls? Dribbling and movement are inherent basketball skills everyone should have and yet they did away with a defensive strategy that made life hard for ball handlers and off-ball movement.
You can try to twist it however you'd like but the root cause is players inability to hit free throws. If the league makes a rule that doesn't allow a poor free throw shooter to be put on the line then the fact is they have created a rule to cover up that weakness. You can try to mask it with excuses of slow play or watchability but the fact that the rule will benefit poor free throw shooters is undeniable.
The rule isn't taking anything away but a gimmick. Fouling a guy nowhere near the ball isn't basketball. Foul him when he gets the ball. The rule change would be so you can't just pick who you want to take free throws whenever you want. You'd actually have to foul the guy with the ball. If the guy can't touch the ball because you're going to foul him right away you're taking away an offensive option anyway. If it's not ok in the last 2 minutes of games why should it be allowed the rest of the game? You either make it a rule for the whole game or allow it for the whole game. It makes no sense to have the rule only apply to part of the game.
So you're saying every foul when someone doesn't have the ball would be considered intentional? They might as well remove defense and the regular season could look just like the all star game. There would be no more battles in the post for position or guys fighting through screens for fear of fouling someone without the ball.
There is a pretty clear difference between looking at the ref, telling him you're trying to foul and then proceed to foul the guy 60 ft from the basket and fighting for position in the post. Fighting for position is not an "intentional" foul. It's clear as day what is and isn't an intentional off-ball foul. It's not hard at all to discern the difference between an intentional off-ball foul and a normal foul. I don't think your concern that defense in the league would crumble because the refs just can't tell the difference between the two is valid at all.
