Foul Shots Weren't Part Of Naismith's Original Rules

Moderators: bwgood77, Domejandro

RealGM Wiretap
RealGM
Posts: 102,732
And1: 293
Joined: Mar 19, 2013

Foul Shots Weren't Part Of Naismith's Original Rules 

Post#1 » by RealGM Wiretap » Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:45 am

An ongoing point of discussion over the past few years has been whether the NBA should change its rules to eliminate the ability for teams to "Hack-A" and force bad free throw shooters onto the line or out of the game.


So-called basketball purists have insisted on preserving the sanctity of the game that requires players to make an acceptable percentage of their free throws.


But the free was not even among the original 13 rules for the game of basketball created by James Naismith, according to a 2010 article on the USA Basketball website written by Ryan Wood.


The closest thing was rule No. 7, which stated "If either side makes consecutive fouls it shall count a goal for the opponents."


The original penalty for committing a foul was tweaked to "if three fouls were committed by one team without the other team having committed a foul, the team that was fouled should receive one point."


At that point, all basketball were worth one point and Naismith realized the penalty was too severe and then adjusted the value of all field goals to three points and fouls were an automatic one point.


Naismith then first created a foul shot, which was from 20 feet and it counted as a field goal if made.


The final major change took place in 1895 when the free throw line was moved to 15 feet. A year later point totals were changed to two for a regular field goal and one point for a free throw.


Those rules stood for 29 years but a team could choose who they wanted to shoot the free throw. In 1924, players had to shoot their own free throws if they were fouled.


"I have often overheard some spectators express the opinion that a game was won by free throws. I have always taken the attitude that the game was lost by fouls." Naismith wrote. "Personally, I believe that any tendency toward lessening the penalty of a foul would be a serious mistake."

Via RealGM Staff Report

User avatar
Jamaaliver
Forum Mod - Hawks
Forum Mod - Hawks
Posts: 37,633
And1: 14,523
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Location: Officially a citizen of the World...
Contact:
     

Re: Foul Shots Weren't Part Of Naismith's Original Rules 

Post#2 » by Jamaaliver » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:04 pm

RealGM Wiretap wrote:"I have often overheard some spectators express the opinion that a game was won by free throws. I have always taken the attitude that the game was lost by fouls." Naismith wrote. "Personally, I believe that any tendency toward lessening the penalty of a foul would be a serious mistake."



Great quote and great pull for the person who dug this up.

This very much makes me reconsider my position on the whole issue.

Free Throws were intended as a penalty to discourage fouls...modern strategy has completely undermined the intent of the man who literally created the game.
hyberx
Starter
Posts: 2,295
And1: 384
Joined: Oct 31, 2001

Re: Foul Shots Weren't Part Of Naismith's Original Rules 

Post#3 » by hyberx » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:03 pm

It doesn't matter what the intention was. It's about what make sense now. What does not make sense is 3 so-called professional basketball players who can't hit a standing shot above 50% to save their lives, without anybody guarding. As long as you hit more than 50%, the penalty is more than the reward of hacking.
User avatar
Rated T By CBRA
Starter
Posts: 2,135
And1: 163
Joined: Aug 06, 2013
   

Re: Foul Shots Weren't Part Of Naismith's Original Rules 

Post#4 » by Rated T By CBRA » Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:26 am

Every sport has evolved since it's inception, I don't have the facts but I am sure that the following were also not part of the original rules:
- 24 sec shot clock
- 3 defensive seconds in the key
- 5 second inbound rule
- time-outs (and how they're split into short and long)
- 5 players active on each side
- 3 point line
- etc.

Basketball changes all the time. Usually for a reasonable purpose. I just don't think 3 super athletic players who don't have a proper shooting form warrant a change rule to the entire league. That is the whole point of trade-offs: you get a center who is a force down low, but can't shoot freethrows. You had AI who was a beast on the permiter and driving to the paint, but could not post anyone up, etc.

Return to Wiretap Discussion