Intentional Fouls

[Mr. E]

Let's call a spade a spade...

This "Hack-a-Dwight" strategy is not new. We've seen it before with other big men. Opposing teams want to take advantage of the poor free throw shooting of an opponent, so they immediately foul that player.

How is that not an "Intentional Foul?"

I have no problem if teams want to do this if said player has the ball or is in the vicinity of the play...but when the player is (once again) "intentionally fouled" far away from the ball then that should come with some penalty. At that point you are not playing basketball, you are simply exploiting the rules.


Here's my solution to this:

If a player is intentionally fouled away from the basketball in order to send that player to the line, then that player's team can choose who shoots the free throws.

So if some team fouls Dwight on the baseline after the in-bound pass (when the ball is already heading up court) then the Rockets could choose which of their players currently on the court to shoot the free throws.

I think that would put a quick and permanent end to these disgusting intentional fouls.

[inquisitive]

hey, you gotta make your FTs...plain and simple...btw, i was surprised that this game only lasted 2hrs 21min...thought it was 3 hrs or so.

maybe they should increase the time instead of under 2min...make it under 6 minutes...this will at least deter some of it...i think hacka is still a good strategy, but in order to curb abuse, just increase the time.

[dunleavyjr]

All the league needs to do is to change the clock from 2 minutes to 5 minutes. When a player is intentionally fouled with 5 minutes left in the game, 2 shots and the ball.

[texasholdem]

It seems hypocritical to be against this now since we used this strategy against the Lakers in a game last season. We just need to sign Yao Ming to play for us in the 4th quarter only.

[BaYBaller]

At the same time you got to realize how stupid it is to just change a rule to accommodate one player.

One thing that kind of bothers me is though is why not have Dwight play at the start of the 4th quarter where teams aren't in the bonus yet, sub him out during the middle of the 4 qtr and then sub him back in at the end of the 4th?

And another thing is why not sub in your best defensive line-up when teams do go to the hack-a-Dwight strategy?

[Guy986]

Oh yea these Hackahoward bs is making these games so unnecessarily long. It happens EVERY game against us. The league should do something about it if anything just from a TV audience point of view. Its going to hurt the Rockets and in turn the NBA's viewership. Who other than the die hard fan are going to tune in or pay $$$ to watch someone shoot Free throw for 20 minutes?

My not so drastic solution: If you foul somebody away from the ball, the team in question can choose to shoot FT or just inbound the ball.

[texasholdem]

Oh we're gonna be like football now. "the penalty is declined"

[Nebula1]

I agree either call it as it is: an intentional foul or allow the team to decline in favor of a new possession. Simple as that.

[tha_rock220]

Let's call a spade a spade...

This "Hack-a-Dwight" strategy is not new. We've seen it before with other big men. Opposing teams want to take advantage of the poor free throw shooting of an opponent, so they immediately foul that player.

How is that not an "Intentional Foul?"

I have no problem if teams want to do this if said player has the ball or is in the vicinity of the play...but when the player is (once again) "intentionally fouled" far away from the ball then that should come with some penalty. At that point you are not playing basketball, you are simply exploiting the rules.


Here's my solution to this:

If a player is intentionally fouled away from the basketball in order to send that player to the line, then that player's team can choose who shoots the free throws.

So if some team fouls Dwight on the baseline after the in-bound pass (when the ball is already heading up court) then the Rockets could choose which of their players currently on the court to shoot the free throws.

I think that would put a quick and permanent end to these disgusting intentional fouls.

So you want the NBA to step in and change the rules and protect Dwight. I disagree. Make your free throws.

[MaxRider]

it's not just for Howard
there are people hacking other bad free throw shooter like
DeAndre Jordan, Andre Drummond (in the future)
it's making the game unfun unwatchable
fans are booing
fans don't want to see that
they need to please the fans

[kam_soluusar]

Personally, I think it is unsportsmanlike. The NBA changed the rules regarding arguing with Referee's because it goes against the "spirit of the game." I think doing this, has the same effect. Should Dwight, or any other player, being paid what they are make their free throws? Hell yes, but that is not the point.

Look at changes made in regards to handchecking. This was done to speed up the game, and allow athletic smaller men, to attack the basket. Changes to allowing Zone Defense have again made it difficult for big men. It's made for the decline of big man skills, as they never go one on one against an opponent.

They changed the ball tampering rules after a basket, because it proved that high Octane teams, (such as ourselves) were being disadvantaged by opposing teams slowing the ball down, and allowing them more time to establish on the defensive end.

My proposal is to change the rule slightly. Make it that if a team is in the penalty situation, that it is called an unsportsmanlike foul, and that results in the usual penalty. So if you have 2 fouls on the board, you can do it twice before it is called as an unsportsmanlike foul. This would basically limit the amount of times a team can do it in a game. Also extend the time limit to the last 6 mins of the fourth quarter. Teams that choose to do this pick their poison. Do it early, fine. But then you will be in the penalty situation for the rest of that quarter, and any foul you commit, (because you are in team penalty, you cannot deliberately "Hack a Howard" anymore.) Next thing you know Harden is going to the line at least 12-16 times a game, where he will make most of them.

The NBA is supposedly committed to the fans and actual owes the fans this. I think it cheats us (the fans) out of what we pay to see. So basically teams can do it, up to 16 times a game, but no more. (And obviously this sort of number isn't going to happen often anyway.) If OT happens, they can do it twice before unsportsmanlike foul is called.

[Nebula1]

If the player doesn't have the ball, then the intentional foul should be called because it clearly is intentional.


Also, my biggest issue with the entire thing is that a foul should never be used as an advantageous tactic. Fouls are undesired, punishable actions.. not actions which a team should use to their advantage. That is similar to cheating for wins or profiting from criminal actions.

[inquisitive]

sorry guys, i like the rule, but it should be modified....under 6min would curb abuse and opposing coaches will have to earn their paycheck.

[texasholdem]

If the player doesn't have the ball, then the intentional foul should be called because it clearly is intentional.


Also, my biggest issue with the entire thing is that a foul should never be used as an advantageous tactic. Fouls are undesired, punishable actions.. not actions which a team should use to their advantage. That is similar to cheating for wins or profiting from criminal actions.

How about intentionally fouling a shooter so they can't attempt a 3 pointer to tie or win the game?
Should the fouled player get 3 free throws automatically even if they were not in the act of shooting?

[Nebula1]

If the player doesn't have the ball, then the intentional foul should be called because it clearly is intentional.


Also, my biggest issue with the entire thing is that a foul should never be used as an advantageous tactic. Fouls are undesired, punishable actions.. not actions which a team should use to their advantage. That is similar to cheating for wins or profiting from criminal actions.

How about intentionally fouling a shooter so they can't attempt a 3 pointer to tie or win the game?
Should the fouled player get 3 free throws automatically even if they were not in the act of shooting?

While I think it's an effective strategy, I don't think it's a legit one. This is another case where I say call it for what it is, an intentional foul.

[moofs]

THE PROBLEM is that basketball coaches slept through math class.

http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/h ... esn-t-work
http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/m ... efficiency
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ... l-strategy?

You can argue against the one-stat categories, and there may be something to be said for completely disrupting the rhythm of the game, but mathematically, hack-a- strategies are complete failures.

The value of a point is 0.03260287. The value of a free throw attempt is -0.0151305; or, more precisely, 0.45032 * the value of a possession employed (or -0.0336).

Given these values, if a player took 100 free throw attempts, he would have to make 46.4085% to break-even. This is found by multiplying 100 * -0.01513505. Then divide this by the value of a point, 0.03260287.

So any player who makes more than 46.41% of his free throws should to go to the line as much as possible.

The list of players that you should try to hack is very small. By my count, since 1979-80, this strategy would probably only work on four players. This because, while 116 players have shot worse than 46.4% on free throws over their NBA careers, only four of them -- Ben Wallace, Chris Dudley, DeAndre Jordan, and Andre Drummond -- ever ended up playing major minutes and would have a chance to be on the court near the end of a meaningful game.

[Jstock12]

THE PROBLEM is that basketball coaches slept through math class.

http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/h ... esn-t-work
http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/m ... efficiency
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/ ... l-strategy?

You can argue against the one-stat categories, and there may be something to be said for completely disrupting the rhythm of the game, but mathematically, hack-a- strategies are complete failures.

The value of a point is 0.03260287. The value of a free throw attempt is -0.0151305; or, more precisely, 0.45032 * the value of a possession employed (or -0.0336).

Given these values, if a player took 100 free throw attempts, he would have to make 46.4085% to break-even. This is found by multiplying 100 * -0.01513505. Then divide this by the value of a point, 0.03260287.

So any player who makes more than 46.41% of his free throws should to go to the line as much as possible.

The list of players that you should try to hack is very small. By my count, since 1979-80, this strategy would probably only work on four players. This because, while 116 players have shot worse than 46.4% on free throws over their NBA careers, only four of them -- Ben Wallace, Chris Dudley, DeAndre Jordan, and Andre Drummond -- ever ended up playing major minutes and would have a chance to be on the court near the end of a meaningful game.

Not quite true. You're viewing at this situation in vacuum, strictly from mathematical point of view. This strategy doesn't only keep the opponent from scoring 2/3 points each time. It also really disrupts their offensive flow when the Hack strategy is ended by the opposing coach. Teams late in games may go out of the offensive rhythm real easy real fast. It also affects players mind. The team which is hacked being forced to play only defense (which is more energy consuming) while the team which is hacking the opponent doesn't play ANY defense at all, they can concentrate on their offense.

Now, more on topic on the rule change, I am against it. If you're not able to hit free-throws, that's a really BIG flaw in your game and perhaps you aren't even WORTH playing in the 4th quarter to begin with. Changing a rule to accomodate a few players is ridiculous.

Also, what banning intentional fouls would only accomplish is that Dwight won't be blatantly fouled in his own side of the court. However, once he runs back to offense, he will be played very hard on every screen, he will get pushed when he's trying to position himself in the post, etc. etc. Intentional fouls disguised as simple ones. So essentially, to avoid the Hack-A-Dwight strategy, Dwight will have to stay on defense while his team is playing 4v5 on offense.

[moofs]

You can argue against the one-stat categories, and there may be something to be said for completely disrupting the rhythm of the game, but mathematically, hack-a- strategies are complete failures.

Not quite true. You're viewing at this situation in vacuum, strictly from mathematical point of view. This strategy doesn't only keep the opponent from scoring 2/3 points each time. It also really disrupts their offensive flow when the Hack strategy is ended by the opposing coach. Teams late in games may go out of the offensive rhythm real easy real fast. It also affects players mind. The team which is hacked being forced to play only defense (which is more energy consuming) while the team which is hacking the opponent doesn't play ANY defense at all, they can concentrate on their offense.

No, I am aware of that side of the argument and even mentioned it (upon review, my tone was both accrediting and dismissive - really weird sentence structure, but I meant it mostly dismissively), I just think the non-mathematical net effect is negligible.

It's not just a one-sided handicap against the fouled team. Both sides are disrupted, and have to find their flows again. Even though the offense gets more tries to do it, they only get one try after each foul. There's no ability to get into the offense quickly off of defensive turnovers, which tend to be high efficiency possessions, AND the fouling team has to manage to keep up with insanely high PPS rates from the fouled team.

Businesses make abstracted process/political arguments against financial claims all the time, too, but finance claims typically end up winning (as long as the analyst is halfway worth his salt).

[TooHood]

look how scared it made dwight, he doesnt even want the ball anymore lol
https://vine.co/v/hF1EKOBOpuJ

[supaflash]

Laker fan here:

I saw all the 'deal with it's and 'it's part of the game, it's strategy' last year but as soon as you have a guy on your team it sucks doesn't it?

I'll admit, I laughed heartily when we used it to beat you guys the other day and it worked, because well F*** Dwight lol.

But I will say that I completely agree. I made the same argument last year and I did it in years before. Why is there an 'intentional foul' rule when it doesn't apply to these intentional fouls? It's not part of the play, it's not a play on the ball, it ruins the flow of the game, it's not fun to watch (aside from this one time ) It just doesn't have anything to do with the game. Now I also agree that a guy needs to learn to shoot his FTs and deal with his mental issues, but that still comes into play. I just think the intentional off the ball grabbing is ridiculous. The team still needs to deal with the fact that they can't really get the ball to the player in a scoring position. If he gets it and the defender makes an aggressive play for the ball or the block and fouls, so be it, that's part of the play and the guy needs to make his FTs. There is still plenty of strategy and negatives on keeping a poor FT shooter out there.

I still think it should be one FT and the ball back. If you are in the bonus, two FTs and the ball back.