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

[JimiCliff]

Rules weren't written to prevent fouling, they were written for fouling to result in a beneficial situation for the team/player being fouled. As such, the player gets free throws so that a team fouling them means they are likely giving up points. If a player is incapable of taking advantage of such a beneficial situation, that's on him, not the rules. Again, it's not the rules job to cover up a lack of skill.

You can validly think there are issues with intentional, off-the-ball fouls, but there's no rule change that will completely eliminate hacking. Teams will still find a way to send the worst free throw shooting to the line. For instance, fouling them on rebounds, where there's no way they can start calling all loose ball fouls on the rebound "intentional off-the-ball" fouls. That would be a disaster.

Given that this strategy has been in play for fifteen years, it's safe to say the player being fouled, does not, in fact, end up in a beneficial situation. Hence, going against the spirit of the rule.

[white men can't jump]

It is. It 100% literally is. There is no way around this.

No, it isn't. You're wrong. It isn't abuse of the rules. You don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. Go learn to ref a game.

Rules aren't supposed to make the game pretty. They're supposed to protect the players, and protect the integrity of the game. Integrity of the game is lost if you start making rules to accommodate a lack of skill among a small minority. Why don't we eliminate the palming call? How about double dribbles? Move the 3 pt line 5 ft closer? Why not just move the FT line closer to while we're at it? Call double-teams violations (after all, what kind of guy can't guard his man straight up)?

New rules are generally put in place to either protect the players, or reflect a real change in majority skills of the game....you know, like eliminating handchecking because of the overly physical nonsense on the perimeter taking a toll on players...or instituting a 3 pt line because of the quality of shooters growing in the league.

[white men can't jump]

Given that this strategy has been in play for fifteen years, it's safe to say the player being fouled, does not, in fact, end up in a beneficial situation. Hence, going against the spirit of the rule.

No....it does not go against the "spirit" of the rule just because the player sucks at it. If you foul 95% of the players in the league it results in a beneficial situation. So we cater to the few that suck at it? The player does not end up in a beneficial situation because of his own lack of skill, not because the spirit of the rule is wrong. The onus is on the player to not be a liability. Not on the rule to create new loopholes to protect him.

[white men can't jump]

The best solution for your argument is to totally eliminate FTs from the game entirely. That way a poor shooter is never exposed and you never have to question whether an opposing coach is going to employ such a strategy. Everything will be an out-of-bounds foul, and coaches will start playing even more physical, slower basketball to try and wear out their opponents. They will never let a player get out in transition....just bang, foul him. Never let a good player get into the lane...just foul him. Problem solved. You'll never have to watch ugly FT shooting again. Just watch the ugliest brand of basketball imaginable.

[Raptorsnz]

Coaches are going to take any advantage they can to win games, and if that means putting Jordan on the FT line they're going to do it. It's like coaches leaving Bogut open at the 3 point line, they do it because it helps their team win. And I think coaches should do it, it's their job to get victories anyway possible. It also introduces strategy in itself; when do you stop it? Does the opposing coach take the bad FT out?

However I do think it'll change eventually, just because of the fact it slows the game down and makes it more boring and that's the last thing in the world the NBA wants.

[white men can't jump]

Coaches are going to take any advantage they can to win games, and if that means putting Jordan on the FT line they're going to do it. It's like coaches leaving Bogut open at the 3 point line, they do it because it helps their team win. And I think coaches should do it, it's their job to get victories anyway possible. It also introduces strategy in itself; when do you stop it? Does the opposing coach take the bad FT out?

However I do think it'll change eventually, just because of the fact it slows the game down and makes it more boring and that's the last thing in the world the NBA wants.

They can make small, easily black-and-white changes (to off-the-ball intentional fouling in general, and in regards to timing)....But there is no way to totally eliminate it (it being the hack-a-whoever strategy) that won't result in some new ludicrous rule(s).

*I mean, the league has been trying to keep the game as fast as possible. This year they tried the automatic delay of game call whenever an opposing player touched it after it went through the basket. This resulted in more whistles, partly because of incidental contact, and slowed the game down.

Rules are just not that simple to change.

**I mean, even if you call every off-the-ball foul as intentional up to say, the last 2 minutes, then coaches will just foul whichever bad player every time he does touch the ball (or as much as they can). The hacking will still be there. No rule change will ever be able to fully accommodate the total lack of skill a select few have in an area...and the coach will still be able to slow down the game and force that guy to the line.

[Primer]

No....it does not go against the "spirit" of the rule just because the player sucks at it. If you foul 95% of the players in the league it results in a beneficial situation. So we cater to the few that suck at it? The player does not end up in a beneficial situation because of his own lack of skill, not because the spirit of the rule is wrong. The onus is on the player to not be a liability. Not on the rule to create new loopholes to protect him.

This right here. There is literally only 3 or 4 guys affected by the hack-a strategy any given season. The guys affected could be better to. For instance, Dwight shot 60% FT for about 6 seasons, he's just been extra bad the last 3 years.

There is also the benefit to the team that's getting hacked in that they'll be in the bonus almost the entire game, so all their good FT shooters will get more shots at the line. Not to mention the opposing teams players getting into foul trouble. Those 4-5 fouls a game have to go to someone.

[white men can't jump]

***Not to mention giving refs more decision-making in grey areas....I mean, DeAndre goes to set a screen, the screened man just plows through him. How does the ref make that call? Is it intentional and off-the-ball? It is within the action of a real play. It can be argued the fouling player is in pursuit of the ball which his man has.....Again...rules are not simple to change, because they are loaded situationally. They start calling that under a new rule that gives them an obvious benefit, and you'll see DeAndre flopping for calls on every screen. They don't and you'll see opposing coaches using that kind of situation to try and get him on the line.

[JimiCliff]

The best solution for your argument is to totally eliminate FTs from the game entirely. That way a poor shooter is never exposed and you never have to question whether an opposing coach is going to employ such a strategy. Everything will be an out-of-bounds foul, and coaches will start playing even more physical, slower basketball to try and wear out their opponents. They will never let a player get out in transition....just bang, foul him. Never let a good player get into the lane...just foul him. Problem solved. You'll never have to watch ugly FT shooting again. Just watch the ugliest brand of basketball imaginable.

No it isn't, not even close. As mentioned, you could let the team choose between shooting free-throws or taking it out of bounds...

***Not to mention giving refs more decision-making in grey areas....I mean, DeAndre goes to set a screen, the screened man just plows through him.

...so in this case, Rivers chooses to either inbound the ball, or have Jordan shoot. Very simple.

And he chooses to inbound. And we don't have to watch any Hack-A-Jordan.

[AlienOverlord]

I've long thought free throws ruin the game. My idea to eliminate them is side out of bounds with a bonus point if they make a shot this possesion or possibly just the very next shot. They still need to make a basket to benefit. In an 'and one' situation, give them a bonus point for their next possesion.

[JimiCliff]

No, it isn't. You're wrong. It isn't abuse of the rules. You don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. Go learn to ref a game.

Looks like we're gonna agree to disagree here. And you don't need to be a referee to understand any of this.

[BigCamB]

I actually find it entertaining, tactical and somewhat dramatic at times. Especially if it's Dwight, love seeing him fail at the line. Of course maybe I'd have a differing opinion if it happened to a raptors player.
Jordan appears to have a decent looking stroke to me, I dunno what his problem is. A lot of it is mental I guess.

[white men can't jump]

...so in this case, Rivers chooses to either inbound the ball, or have Jordan shoot. Very simple.

And he chooses to inbound. And we don't have to watch any Hack-A-Jordan.

And this is a whole new problem. Rivers can choose inbounds for his poor shooters and shots for his good shooters. Welcome to an all new abuse of rules

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[white men can't jump]

Looks like we're gonna agree to disagree here. And you don't need to be a referee to understand any of this.

I don't think you need to be a referee but I don't think you fully appreciate how complex and open to interpretation rules are. And how every new rule creates new problems and loopholes. It is not a matter of a simple change. And it's not a matter of appealing to the spectator. That's the kind of thinking that leads to much of the worst reffing in the league.

[JRedmond14]

I think this argument is a little bit flawed. Where does the rule fall for some people? Is DeAndre Jordan considered a bad free throw shooter but say some who is shooting 60% is not? There would have to be so many little sub rules that the refs job would become impossible. Its just a strategy and does not guarantee you any success.