RE: Rule Change to Fix Hack-a-Shaq

[kurtis48239]

I never said NBA coaches dont work with players.I agree to a certain extent about the mental side,but we will have to agree to disagree about practicing and getting better.Like I said,there should be no reason,if the player puts in the time,he shouldnt become an avg ft shooter.Iam not saying dre has to be a goo/great ft shooter,but with practice,there shouldnt be a reason he cant become 40/50% shooter considering his age.

okay, i'll agree he can at least be a 40-50% FT shooter. however i really think your underestimating the mental side of a FT. Its very much a frame of mine you have to get in, and repetitive ritual motion is key. If you notice, Dre has developed a ritual over the years.the fact that most of the time your body still feels like its running down the court, it takes tremendous focus. If you play, i am sure you have experienced it.

In my opinion,when it comes to bigs and being poor ft shooters,it goes back to childhood.I think when bigs are younger and are bigger than everyone,their coaches usually always negelect that aspect of their game.It dosent really become a problem for them until college and the pros because befor that,they were the best in their divisons,now there in a pool where everyone has the same chance and ability.There are some anomalys,guys that hit growth spurts and were playing more sg/sf in high school and now are 6"10 and playing center with a shooter back ground,and some bigs just have that knack.I guarntee that if dre had been working hard on his ft shooting since he started playing ball and working just as hard on ft as much as everything else,this wouldnt even be a topic.

I get that, but we can't change how he developed. In the same respect the average nba player can't shoot above 50% from beyond the 3 , Dre can't shoot above 60%(i believe that's the highest any sub 50 player has improved too)

I guess we have found some common ground lol.In any respect,what it boils down to,is we ALL want dre to get better and the expectations we all have arent other worldly (well,the majority any ways lol).

[Jackattaq]

I never said NBA coaches dont work with players.I agree to a certain extent about the mental side,but we will have to agree to disagree about practicing and getting better.Like I said,there should be no reason,if the player puts in the time,he shouldnt become an avg ft shooter.Iam not saying dre has to be a goo/great ft shooter,but with practice,there shouldnt be a reason he cant become 40/50% shooter considering his age.

okay, i'll agree he can at least be a 40-50% FT shooter. however i really think your underestimating the mental side of a FT. Its very much a frame of mine you have to get in, and repetitive ritual motion is key. If you notice, Dre has developed a ritual over the years.the fact that most of the time your body still feels like its running down the court, it takes tremendous focus. If you play, i am sure you have experienced it.

In my opinion,when it comes to bigs and being poor ft shooters,it goes back to childhood.I think when bigs are younger and are bigger than everyone,their coaches usually always negelect that aspect of their game.It dosent really become a problem for them until college and the pros because befor that,they were the best in their divisons,now there in a pool where everyone has the same chance and ability.There are some anomalys,guys that hit growth spurts and were playing more sg/sf in high school and now are 6"10 and playing center with a shooter back ground,and some bigs just have that knack.I guarntee that if dre had been working hard on his ft shooting since he started playing ball and working just as hard on ft as much as everything else,this wouldnt even be a topic.

I get that, but we can't change how he developed. In the same respect the average nba player can't shoot above 50% from beyond the 3 , Dre can't shoot above 60%(i believe that's the highest any sub 50 player has improved too)

I personally think you are OVERESTIMATING the mental side of the FT. I played organized basketball for over 15 years, yes, you have to step to the stripe in big game situations (at times), but if you are well prepared and confident in your ability to knock down FT's there is NO FEAR about being fouled. With some players I think it is OBVIOUS they don't want to be fouled and when you see them saunter to the FT line they don't have the look of a guy who is ready to confidently bury the shots and get his team some points. They are slowly walking to the line with their heads down and a kind of "here we go again" approach to shooting FTs. I"m not saying that every FT situation is identical, obviously FTs to win a game or in the last minute instill more pressure than first quarter FT's but it's NOT ALL MENTAL, there is a skill to shooting them and it's a skill I honestly believe some pro players don't hone well enough.

[Manocad]

[Blkbrd671]

I personally think you are OVERESTIMATING the mental side of the FT. I played organized basketball for over 15 years, yes, you have to step to the stripe in big game situations (at times), but if you are well prepared and confident in your ability to knock down FT's there is NO FEAR about being fouled. With some players I think it is OBVIOUS they don't want to be fouled and when you see them saunter to the FT line they don't have the look of a guy who is ready to confidently bury the shots and get his team some points. They are slowly walking to the line with their heads down and a kind of "here we go again" approach to shooting FTs. I"m not saying that every FT situation is identical, obviously FTs to win a game or in the last minute instill more pressure than first quarter FT's but it's NOT ALL MENTAL, there is a skill to shooting them and it's a skill I honestly believe some pro players don't hone well enough.

You state i am overestimating the mental aspect of a FT, however in your post you allude to confidence and wallowing. THat is very much a mental aspect of the FT. Your mind frame going to the line and your confidence to make em. Additionally you look at the average NBA player, they all have FT rituals, and the reason for those rituals is repetitive motion. If you really played ball for 15 years, then you know its not as simple as just stepping to the stride and being confident. There's focus, there fatigue, there's form etc. Argue all you want, but arguing FT's aren't mental as much physical is a losing battle

[Blkbrd671]

Again, no, it's a bad idea. The rules are such and it's better to take advantage of them than to lobby to change them. I'm not sure I like the Clear Path. Give up four fouls in a quarter and from there on everyone shoots free throws. Seems like a fair consequence. Why is it "unsportsmanlike" to make a guy shoot free throws when you believe him unable to do so. The object is to win the game. For each foul given there is a consequence. Really, it ain't broke.

i don't get why when someone goes into the lane and is foul'd hard, they go to the replay to see if they made a play on the ball, and if not, its a flagarant. however they completly allow another player to grab another player who's not even in the play let alone touching the ball. whats the difference?

There's a huge difference between giving an intentional foul, which usually involves telling the ref your intent and then just grabbing the guy in a pretty nonaggressive manner, and parsing intent regarding a hard foul, often in traffic, in the lane. It seems to me a fairly obvious difference.

Section IV--Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
PENALTY: (1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended. (2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, the opposing coach will select any player from the bench to attempt the free throws. (3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. (EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e.) (4) The injured player may not return to the game. (5) A player will be ejected if he commits two flagrant fouls in the same game.
b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpret-ed to be unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul--penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
PENALTY: (1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended. (2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, his coach will select a substitute and any player from the team is eligible to attempt the free throws. (3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e. (4) The injured player may return to the game at any time after the free throws are attempted. (5) This is an unsports-manlike act and the offender is ejected.
c. A flagrant foul may be assessed whether the ball is dead or alive

[Blkbrd671]

Just for the record — I have ZERO problem with any team hacking Dre, Howard, DeAndre, or Shaq (back in the day) the second they touch the ball and forcing them to make two FTs rather than go up for a dunk. Nor do I have a problem with teams packing the paint against Josh Smith and daring him to shoot from the outside. Nor do I have a problem with an NFL team running the ball to kill clock, or throwing a hitter who can't hit a curve three straight breaking balls (cross sports analogies that have been used in this thread). To me, those are strategies WITHIN the game that exploit an opponent's weakness. You honestly don't seem to see any difference between these strategies and "Hack-a-Shaq-ing," and you're entitled to that opinion, but I (and many others) do see one. And as long as there's a disagreement upon that distinction (or lack thereof), this debate will never progress beyond both sides slamming their heads against a wall because there's such a fundamental difference in how we approach the question.

The difference in our opinions seems to come from your believing that running up to a player away from the ball and hugging them at half court is part of the game of basketball because it's legal, whereas I don't care what the rules say, I don't agree that's part of the game. In short, you're saying, "It's legal, so it's part of the game," and I'm saying, "It's not part of the game, so it should be illegal." It's a "which comes first, the chicken or the egg" situation.

So again, we're back to asking which is the lesser of two evils — protecting bad free throw shooters by changing the rules regarding off-the-ball fouls, or allowing teams to strategically destroy the actual flow and play of the game. You say the former, and I say the latter.

DocRI gets it. Perfect example of the bolded: the rip through move was at one point an automatic 2 free throws. It was legal and people took advantage of it. Doesn't mean it should be part of the game...and accordingly, it was altered so that it remains a foul but a non-shooting one.

And I've yet to see someone actually address the 3 seconds/zone/hand check points that all reduced the relevancy of a particular weakness for players with certain play styles. Make no mistake, those rules did not impact everybody equally. Outlawing hand-checking favored Allen Iverson and Dwyane Wade a lot more than it did for Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudemire.

Even if some of the anti hack-a-shaq stuff mentioned in this thread was implemented, Dre's poor FT shooting would still be a big concern. People could still put him on the line anytime he touches the ball in the penalty or whenever he tried to finish around the basket. I admit to being a homer at times, but I'm 100% certain I'd feel the same way on this issue regardless of whether or not it would benefit our team. I've felt this way since before I even know who Andre Drummond was.

All of them try to ignore this point, because i think most of them are in favor of those rules being implemented but if they admit that, they'd be giving up ground. its one thing if dre has the ball, its another if he's in a corner completely away from the play

[hoophabit]

i don't get why when someone goes into the lane and is foul'd hard, they go to the replay to see if they made a play on the ball, and if not, its a flagarant. however they completly allow another player to grab another player who's not even in the play let alone touching the ball. whats the difference?

There's a huge difference between giving an intentional foul, which usually involves telling the ref your intent and then just grabbing the guy in a pretty nonaggressive manner, and parsing intent regarding a hard foul, often in traffic, in the lane. It seems to me a fairly obvious difference.

Section IV--Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
PENALTY: (1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended. (2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, the opposing coach will select any player from the bench to attempt the free throws. (3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. (EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e.) (4) The injured player may not return to the game. (5) A player will be ejected if he commits two flagrant fouls in the same game.
b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpret-ed to be unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul--penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
PENALTY: (1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended. (2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, his coach will select a substitute and any player from the team is eligible to attempt the free throws. (3) This substitute may not be replaced until the ball is legally touched by a player on the court. EXCEPTION: Rule 3--Section V--e. (4) The injured player may return to the game at any time after the free throws are attempted. (5) This is an unsports-manlike act and the offender is ejected.
c. A flagrant foul may be assessed whether the ball is dead or alive

You didn't really need to quote the rule book to prove to me that you're missing the point. The origin of the flagrant foul goes to the intent of some players to deliver physical punishment that goes beyond incidental contact in the course of making a basketball play. It was instituted for player safety and to reduce pure intimidation fouls. If a team chooses to give an intentional foul some contact is necessary, and it isn't allowed to be overly aggressive. Would you be against teams giving intentional fouls when up by 3 at the end of the game to preclude the 3 point shot?

"And I've yet to see someone actually address the 3 seconds/zone/hand check points that all reduced the relevancy of a particular weakness for players with certain play styles. Make no mistake, those rules did not impact everybody equally. Outlawing hand-checking favored Allen Iverson and Dwyane Wade a lot more than it did for Tim Duncan and Amare Stoudemire."

Just for fun then, let me address it. For one thing all of these rules resulted from practices that were seen as routinely affecting the flow of the game. The 3 second and zone rules affect every game all the time. The issue under discussion in this thread affects only a few players who clearly have a large deficit in one area of basketball skill. The hand checking rules came about because of a groundswell both from fans and players that might be characterized as "what's it take to get a foul?". Allowing the pushing/holding of a player to prevent them using their skills and driving the ball was seen as detracting from the game.

However, all the rules are subject to modification if enough people think it's necessary for the betterment of the game. As I've stated previously, I don't particularly like the clear path foul because when you have fouls to give, giving the intentional foul to stop a break was a smart basketball move. I expect and respect that others will have different opinions on these matters. If enough people are on your side the rule will eventually change.

[Jackattaq]

I personally think you are OVERESTIMATING the mental side of the FT. I played organized basketball for over 15 years, yes, you have to step to the stripe in big game situations (at times), but if you are well prepared and confident in your ability to knock down FT's there is NO FEAR about being fouled. With some players I think it is OBVIOUS they don't want to be fouled and when you see them saunter to the FT line they don't have the look of a guy who is ready to confidently bury the shots and get his team some points. They are slowly walking to the line with their heads down and a kind of "here we go again" approach to shooting FTs. I"m not saying that every FT situation is identical, obviously FTs to win a game or in the last minute instill more pressure than first quarter FT's but it's NOT ALL MENTAL, there is a skill to shooting them and it's a skill I honestly believe some pro players don't hone well enough.

You state i am overestimating the mental aspect of a FT, however in your post you allude to confidence and wallowing. THat is very much a mental aspect of the FT. Your mind frame going to the line and your confidence to make em. Additionally you look at the average NBA player, they all have FT rituals, and the reason for those rituals is repetitive motion. If you really played ball for 15 years, then you know its not as simple as just stepping to the stride and being confident. There's focus, there fatigue, there's form etc. Argue all you want, but arguing FT's aren't mental as much physical is a losing battle

Never said there wasn't a mental aspect to FT shooting, but I do believe you are overstating it. Like I said there is a difference between 1st quarter FTs when you are fresh and the game isn't on the line and a set of FT's in the 4th where fatigue and nerves can play a factor. You seem to believe it's all mental. If you have the skill (that is attained from HOURS AND HOURS of practice) to knock down FT's you will knock them down at a better rate than 43%. Making excuses for PROFESSIONALS not shooting at least 65% is a joke to me. Factoring in all the factors of mental focus, physical fatigue and game situations should in no way shape or form equate to a sub 43% FT success rate in the NBA. No way, too many excuses. 43% for a pro, come on man, you're better than that. You know it and I know it, it's inexcusable. I do enjoy reading your posts even when I don't agree with them all, you are an active poster and I'm not trying to start a war, but seriously, I just can't give pros a free pass when it's their job to hit more than 43% from the FT line.

[Manocad]

I never said they may not be able to develop. I said they may not become a GOOD free throw shooter. There's a big difference between good (80+%) and horrendous (less than 50%).

i believe 60% was the highest any sub 50 made it? In the same instance the average NBA 3 point specialist can't exceed 50% behind the 3 point line. Its inability as oppose to lack of effort.

I'm not addressing your points because I DON'T CARE IF STRATEGIES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A LESSER SKILL. That's part of the game. I don't care if you don't like my argument. If you're going to sleep better at night because you think you've made a better argument, have at it. You're not going to get validation from me because I will never agree that a rule should be changed to accommodate a lack of skill. This isn't a right and wrong issue. It's a matter of preference.

Your validating my points by refusing to address them. While i don't need your validation , it does feel nice to know i have legitimate points.

Being able to foul player B , because you can't stop player A, is not basketball.

And now you've admitted that you're looking for validation. You're not going to get it from me no matter how badly you want it.

If your points carried as much weight as you think they do, the rules would have changed. Since they haven't, apparently the league doesn't put any stock in your points either.