RealGM

Is there a solid argument against the 1-and-1 free throw rule in the NBA? I think it makes games more exciting, especially toward the end, because they players truly have to earn the points instead of getting 2 shots automatically. I did some quick Googling but I can't find any info on whether or not the NBA has ever used or even contemplated switching to it. I know most rule changes are frowned upon, but would you support this change if it were ever brought to the table?

EDIT: I'm realizing that a lot of people don't know about 1-and-1 free throws:

1-and-1 free throw rule.

On a non-shooting foul, after the team is over the limit, the player who was fouled gets a "1-and-1", meaning that if he makes the first free throw, he gets an attempt at a second. If he misses the first free throw, the ball is in play and the game resumes. I think NCAA rules are that it jumps to 2 automatic free throws after 10 team fouls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't understand what you meant

Sent from my SM-G900FQ using RealGM Forums mobile app

yosemiteben wrote:Any rule change that makes games take even longer down the stretch is a good one in my book.

This rule change makes the game quicker, in my opinion. If the player misses the first free throw, the game starts immediately back up.

berkkobe7 wrote:I don't understand what you meant

I think he's saying that you only get 1 point on an and1 opportunity and the other point you have to earn at the line.

I think he means you have to make the first shot to take the second free throw.

The solid argument would be that it's a terrible idea that would turn every game into hack-a-shaq.

Edit: I shouldn't have said hack-a-shaq. I meant that this incentivizes fouling too much. Teams would rather foul than play actual defense. I'm trying to do the math right now to see what the points per possession would come out to.

bobly wrote:I think he means you have to make the first shot to take the second free throw.

The solid argument would be that it's a terrible idea that would turn every game into hack-a-shaq.

Make fouls away from the ball free throws and retaining possession for the team. This should have been done a long time ago. Nothing more annoying than off the ball fouls done strategically to kill the flow of the game.

berkkobe7 wrote:I don't understand what you meant

Sent from my SM-G900FQ using RealGM Forums mobile app

1-and-1 free throw rule.

On a non-shooting foul, after the team is over the limit, the player who was fouled gets a "1-and-1", meaning that if he makes the first free throw, he gets an attempt at a second. If he misses the first free throw, the ball is in play and the game resumes. I think NCAA rules are that it jumps to 2 automatic free throws after 10 team fouls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

bobly wrote:I think he means you have to make the first shot to take the second free throw.

The solid argument would be that it's a terrible idea that would turn every game into hack-a-shaq.

No, the only time you'd get the 1-and-1 free throws would be after the team reaches the limit. The same time they'd get 2 automatically now.

bobly wrote:I think he means you have to make the first shot to take the second free throw.

The solid argument would be that it's a terrible idea that would turn every game into hack-a-shaq.

Pretty much this. Right now, a good FT shooter will score like 1.5 points per trip to the line for 2. That means you generally do not want to foul someone. If it was 1 and 1, that would probably go down closer to 1 point per FT trip so an increase in hacking will probably occur, with more FT shots , not less due to increased frequency.

If nothing else, the lack of knowledge of what a "1 and 1" is proves that a ton of posters here have never played basketball.

Color me shocked.

It disproportionately penalizes bad free throw shooters / rewards good ones

NYK512 wrote:If nothing else, the lack of knowledge of what a "1 and 1" is proves that a ton of posters here have never played basketball.

Color me shocked.

Since you know what I'm talking about, am I explaining it clear enough? It's shockingly hard to explain a rule. It's like when I try explaining offensive, defensive and shooting fouls to my wife who's a big hockey fan. She just kind of stares at me and says, "so they can't hit anyone at all?!" and I'm like "they can barely touch anyone..."

My Main Man wrote:

berkkobe7 wrote:I don't understand what you meant

Sent from my SM-G900FQ using RealGM Forums mobile app

1-and-1 free throw rule.

On a non-shooting foul, after the team is over the limit, the player who was fouled gets a "1-and-1", meaning that if he makes the first free throw, he gets an attempt at a second. If he misses the first free throw, the ball is in play and the game resumes. I think NCAA rules are that it jumps to 2 automatic free throws after 10 team fouls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't want to say this was a bad idea but it kills the flow of game.

berkkobe7 wrote:

My Main Man wrote:

berkkobe7 wrote:I don't understand what you meant

Sent from my SM-G900FQ using RealGM Forums mobile app

1-and-1 free throw rule.

On a non-shooting foul, after the team is over the limit, the player who was fouled gets a "1-and-1", meaning that if he makes the first free throw, he gets an attempt at a second. If he misses the first free throw, the ball is in play and the game resumes. I think NCAA rules are that it jumps to 2 automatic free throws after 10 team fouls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't want to say this was a bad idea but it kills the flow of game.

But it doesn't at all. It's used in the NCAA right now and it doesn't kill the flow in the slightest.

Encourages to tons of fouling up 3 and up even 2.

Encourages hacking a big man almost anytime he gets close to a scoring position in the lane.

EV of hacking a 50% shooter goes from 100 Orating (bad) (50% FG) to 75Orating (37.5%FG) (catastrophic).

Anything that encourages an increased amount of FT's attempted is not something I want in the game.

My Main Man wrote:

berkkobe7 wrote:

My Main Man wrote:

1-and-1 free throw rule.

On a non-shooting foul, after the team is over the limit, the player who was fouled gets a "1-and-1", meaning that if he makes the first free throw, he gets an attempt at a second. If he misses the first free throw, the ball is in play and the game resumes. I think NCAA rules are that it jumps to 2 automatic free throws after 10 team fouls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't want to say this was a bad idea but it kills the flow of game.

But it doesn't at all. It's used in the NCAA right now and it doesn't kill the flow in the slightest.

Yes, it does. End of games in NCAA is even more nauseating than the NBA because of the 1-and-1. It's a terrible rule and encourages gimmick basketball (hack-a-Shaq).

1-and-1 and rotating possessions for 50-50 calls (jump balls, "possession arrows") are two of the biggest reasons I hate college basketball.

My Main Man wrote:

yosemiteben wrote:Any rule change that makes games take even longer down the stretch is a good one in my book.

This rule change makes the game quicker, in my opinion. If the player misses the first free throw, the game starts immediately back up.

Whoops, I'm a college basketball fan and got my rules mixed up and thought you were arguing against 1-and-1 FTs. I'm on board.

The NCAA game suckkkkkkkkkkks. Almost nothing basketball wise is better in college. Anything that makes the NBA game more like the NCAA game should be poo pooed.

There's the equality of competition, the rivalries and the tournament. But the actual basketball being played is made so much worse by the rules that differ between the pro and college game.

JLei wrote:The NCAA game suckkkkkkkkkkks. Almost nothing basketball wise is better in college. Anything that makes the NBA game more like the NCAA game should be poo pooed.

Yeah, this idea was a real winnder: