As his first order of business, should Adam Silver eliminate the Hack-A-(Insert Poor FT Shooter's Name)?

[white men can't jump]

Same. Leave the rules alone, the only thing that hack-a-player does is show how a multi million dollar athlete can't make a free throw and his punishment should be the embarrassment of being teams calling him out as being a weak link.

There are 4 things that I would like to see, and think the league could benefit from the most:
1) Challenge rule for controversial calls, with the loss of a time out if the challenge is wrong. Like football.
2) Flopping foul. The flopper gets charged a regular foul, the other team is given 2 free throws and possession back. Like the clear path foul.
3) 1-and-1 bonus free throw shooting (like college). This could make some interesting comebacks late game with bad free throw shooters. IMO bad FT shooters should be penalized at this level, not coddled.
4) Less time outs late game. Currently each team can have 3 time outs stockpiled for the end of game situation. I think it should be made that in the last 3 minutes of the game, each team can only have 1 full time out. This would massively speed up the late game, as well as open up comebacks and make for some really clutch players as the players will have to be better prepped for these end of game situations.**


**Nearly all non-NBA fans I have talked too all hate that the last couple of minutes of the game take soooo long to play and really is boring to watch all those commercials and I tend to agree. I want to watch the superstars in the league take over Reggie Miller style late game, but with all these time outs it is improbable, and if it does happed, it's just not as fun to watch

I actually like the current flopping rules. It hasn't totally eliminated it, but it's far FAR less prevalent than it was before the warnings/fines. Adding a foul call more likely means refs are going to do a shitty job calling flops, since they can't even make correct calls on obvious plays some of the time.

*I also have no problem with the timeouts late-game. It is what it is. It only slows down a game that's close...And you'd probably see some ugly helter-skelter shit if you took them away.

**Challenges are tricky. Obviously, like football, you'd have to be limited to a certain amount. I'd be ok with one challenge a half to start with. See how that rule works and change it (or eliminate it) accordingly.

**The one-and-one thing is not necessary, IMO...I like a flat 2-shot penalty. No staggered penalty please. But I wouldn't be upset if they instituted it.

[OldSkoolCool]

I don't think that the current flopping rules have changed anything. Players are still doing it on a regular basis, but if there is a possible foul to be called from flopping in-game. It will pretty much disappear and the refs won't have to call it very often anyways.

[white men can't jump]

I don't think that the current flopping rules have changed anything. Players are still doing it on a regular basis, but if there is a possible foul to be called from flopping in-game. It will pretty much disappear and the refs won't have to call it very often anyways.

I disagree. I remember flopping being like an epidemic for a few years. It happens a lot less now. I would wager at least something like 60-70% reduced. It was totally out of control.

Making it a foul is more likely to just increase the amount of bad calls, I think.

Part of the problem is except for brutally obvious ones, flops would be damn near impossible to call in real time. Having reviews and a fine system is a logical way around this.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[white men can't jump]

An important part to remember about flopping....the warnings and fines apply to flops that result in an (incorrect) foul call. So even for flops that do occur....either the guy gets penalized, or more simply the ref doesn't call it. You don't need a new foul for flopping. Refs can just ignore it and let them play. And when they screw up the guy gets called out. This in turn helps weed out the worst offenders so that refs ideally are mindful of those guys when making calls.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[ezz_bee]

**Nearly all non-NBA fans I have talked too all hate that the last couple of minutes of the game take soooo long to play and really is boring to watch all those commercials and I tend to agree.

Not only do non-NBA fans hate the fact that NBA games drag on, a lot of real die hard NBA fans hate it as well. The time out following a time out is especially annoying. I'm a fan of giving the team a choice to shot foul shots or not, more for the end game implications, the fact that it would solve the hack-a-foul strategy, is just a positive externality. If all those foul shots weren't boring and taking away from actual basketball I would have a problem, as I agree with the premise, that professionals should be able to shoot free throws at a decent rate.

I think there's a reason why when we play pick up games we don't have shooting fouls... because time is limited and we're all happier actually playing basketball than watching somebody shoot by him or herself. I think that extends to the NBA. We'd all be happier watching athletes actually playing basketball than standing around watching 1 player shoot. The hack-a-player is almost entirely on the player getting fouled (if you make them, they stop). But it does serve to point out the way in which foul shots (particularly at the end of games) create a crappy product.

I never understood how annoying foul shots were until I got Raps TV a few seasons ago and started to watch the "game in an hour" replays. I would still watch games live as much as possible (and would often rewatch games), but game in an hour was awesome because they cut out like 95% of foul shots. You'd still be able to figure out what happened based on the box score. I mean that's the (not) great thing about foul shots, if there's more than 1, then there's only two possible actions on all but the final shot: either the guy makes it or he doesn't.

Anyway, I don't care if they make a rule to address the hack a player (because it doesn't happen that often from a league wide perspective), but they should make some changes to keep the flow of the game moving in the final six minutes. Again, it doesn't make sense to employ a strategy where your plan to get back in the game, is to give the other team the BEST POSSIBLE offensive outcome (or at least the top 3 behind dunk and wide open 3-pointer, although it also has the benefit of added a foul to an opposing player).

As long as we can all agree that the league should make some tweaks to speed up the end of games, I'm happy to let the hack-a-player continue

[white men can't jump]

Something I might be interested in seeing for adding to the current flopping rules...

-Officials who repeatedly fall for flops and call fouls for the flopper should have some sort of punishment. Like call 5 flops and you lose a game's work. I don't know. Just something to make officials mindful of it. If players get punished for repeating the offence, then so should the officials who fall for it.

Again, you don't need a new flop-related foul call. You just need to not fall for it and let guys play.

[JawsGT]

Good commentary, and for the most part I have to agree with whitemen...there really is no good way to address the hack-a-poor free throw shooter strategy. I also do not like the strategy, and for the most part I would think that most fans would agree.

I do not like the idea of allowing the coach to choose which player gets to shoot, in the event of an intentional team foul while in the bonus.

The option to shoot or inbounds on intentional team fouls (I'll define a team foul as being any non-shooting foul, but I am not sure if this is the correct definition) is an interesting solution. However, things will get muddled when refs have to decide between intentional and non-intentional fouls, so the league could provide the option on all team fouls committed once in the bonus. So, on any non-shooting foul while in the bonus, the team has the right to inbounds or shoot FT's, but if it is a shooting foul than the FT's have to be taken by the guy that got fouled. This would create some interesting dilemmas for coaches though. Opposing coaches could just continue to foul a guy like Jordan near the end of the game, forcing the opposing team to inbounds after every foul, while the clock whittles away after each inbounds. Say the Raps are up by 3, and the Clips cross half court and start to run a play. Casey tells his guys to let them run the clock for a few seconds and then foul Jordan. They do so, and continue to do so until the clock runs down while preventing the Clips an opportunity to shoot. At some point in this scenario, Rivers will have to bench Jordan or allow him to shoot the FT's.

Now, if the Raps are trailing instead, they can continue to foul Jordan, and use the ensuing inbounds play to try and steal the ball. If they fail, they foul him again, and so on and so forth until they either steal the ball or force the Clips to send Jordan to the line or the bench.

So, I don't think the option of shooting FT's or inbounding is likely to solve the problem. The strategy can still be employed but probably even more limited to close game situations.

Furthermore, any change that requires the ref to differentiate between this, that and the other thing, is likely to result in more mistakes and certainly controversary (say in the intentional vs. non-intentional I mentioned above). So, the rule or rules have to be as black and white as possible, they should be clear-cut and easy to interpret or they become utterly useless. The refs have a hard enough time with blocking fouls and charges, not to mention continuations on possible And-1's, that any more 'open to interpretation' rules should be avoided.

I really don't think there is a great way to deal with this. Maybe the league could only accept players that shoot 65% or greater from the line lol. In any event, if there is a guy on the floor that is a terrible FT shooter, than an opposing coach will exploit that, and like whitemen, I'm not sure the league should interfere with a coaches ability to exploit another teams weakness. That's how you win games, by making teams do things they aren't good at. And hey, if the Clips don't like, then Jordan should learn to shoot FT's!!

[NoPropsneeded]

Lol this guy is such a troll

[SitnonDfence]

They (players/coaches) already get fined for commenting/criticizing the officiating. That's pretty Stalin-ish.

Correction:

They get fined for critizing through the media outlets. They can complain all they want through the proper channels and procedures.

Very Democratic

[SitnonDfence]

The whole premise behind a rule change is ridiculous.

Coaches are paid to exploit and hide weaknesses.

Players who cant defend are sat, players who cant score are subbed out for offense/defense at the end of a game all the time.

Its like saying that Chris Paul is not allowed to intentionally ISO Vasquez because he is too slow. ( Cold Gravy?) ,You put the player on the floor knowing his weaknesses. If youre not willing to accept that deficiency than sit him down.

McHale sat Dwight , im suprised there isnt a precedence set for this already.



Learn your craft or sit down.

[Mess]

Learn your craft? What do you say about the team who does the hacking? (because they're losing)

Should they not maybe learn something too?

Do people really think that the solution is to leave everything the same and have the players "learn to shoot?" That will not change one thing. Players are still going to get signed to huge contracts without having a 70% FT average. They're still a benefit to their team 95% of the time they're out there.

David Stern changed the ball, the 3 point line and the size of the key. Will instituting some clear rule/penalty for intentional off-ball fouls fundamentally change the game for the worse? Not at all.

You're getting rid of one minor coaching strategy that absolutely no one finds enjoyable. Some fans of the team doing it may tolerate it if it works, but no one likes watching it.

As soon as they catch the ball though? Sure hack away.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

If the player has the ball, I have no issue with a coaching strategy that exploits the rules. Players can potentially foul out and free points should be put on the board against you - that's penalty enough.

I do however think the rule could be tweaked when the fouls are made against a player who doesn't have the ball. In that case, I could see it treated like a technical foul (essentially it is unsportsmanlike conduct), where the team getting fouled gets 1 free throw (by any player on the court) and the ball back. The player committing the foul should also receive a personal foul.

That change will allow the leading team to keep their good defensive players on the court (who are often the poor free throw shooters), while still allowing the trailing team to employ the fouling strategy (but only against the player who has the ball).

It seems like a pretty minor, no brainer idea to me.

[stooley]

If the player has the ball, I have no issue with a coaching strategy that exploits the rules. Players can potentially foul out and free points should be put on the board against you - that's penalty enough.

I do however think the rule could be tweaked when the fouls are made against a player who doesn't have the ball. In that case, I could see it treated like a technical foul (essentially it is unsportsmanlike conduct), where the team getting fouled gets 1 free throw (by any player on the court) and the ball back. The player committing the foul should also receive a personal foul.

That change will allow the leading team to keep their good defensive players on the court (who are often the poor free throw shooters), while still allowing the trailing team to employ the fouling strategy (but only against the player who has the ball).

It seems like a pretty minor, no brainer idea to me.

Only issue is you have to specify the difference between intentional off-ball fouls and the rest of legitimate fouls that are called off the ball throughout regular games.

[Letter N]

If the player has the ball, I have no issue with a coaching strategy that exploits the rules. Players can potentially foul out and free points should be put on the board against you - that's penalty enough.

I do however think the rule could be tweaked when the fouls are made against a player who doesn't have the ball. In that case, I could see it treated like a technical foul (essentially it is unsportsmanlike conduct), where the team getting fouled gets 1 free throw (by any player on the court) and the ball back. The player committing the foul should also receive a personal foul.

That change will allow the leading team to keep their good defensive players on the court (who are often the poor free throw shooters), while still allowing the trailing team to employ the fouling strategy (but only against the player who has the ball).

It seems like a pretty minor, no brainer idea to me.

That essentially is the rule for the last 2-minutes of the 4th, and I agree all they need to do is extend that throughout the whole game but I think it should still only get you a free-throw if the defending team has gone over the 5 team fouls or else I could see it leading to some big flops down low when things get desperate.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Only issue is you have to specify the difference between intentional off-ball fouls and the rest of legitimate fouls that are called off the ball throughout regular games.

That's true. My thinking is that it's usually pretty obvious when the play is going on in one area, only to see a player rush over and deliberately whack a player who's clearly not directly involved in the play, who just happens to be a 50% free throw shooter. Most of these situations are down the stretch of the game when the fouling is done to stop the clock, which makes the deliberateness even more obvious.

The problem is that a rule change like that can't really be tried out in the D-league or pre-season, since the occurrences are quite rare overall. I guess there could be some subjectivity involved, but likely not too much, especially once the rule starts getting enforced (or so you would hope).