OT: NBA's new Hack a Dre rules | The Boneyard

OT: NBA's new Hack a Dre rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Makes sense to me. You can intentionally foul into the bonus advantaging the team getting fouled even if the guy misses and then they can just take him out so he still provided value. But in situations where the bonus is most naturally to occur, they've outlawed the fouls.
 
I'm with Cuban on this, you don't reward incompetence. Make your damn free throws. I know I can't.
 
Butch said:
I'm with Cuban on this, you don't reward incompetence. Make your damn free throws. I know I can't.
Expand ...

The NBA isn't a life or death skills challenge. It's an entertainment business and watching intentional fouling is terrible, whereas watching giant men who happen to not be good at foul shooting dunk things is very entertaining.
 
I agree to an extent, but I also hold that intentional fouling should be penalized differently. And from the other side of the coin, play damned defense to stop them from scoring, instead of intentionally fouling.
 
Butch said:
I'm with Cuban on this, you don't reward incompetence. Make your damn free throws. I know I can't.
Expand ...
The current system rewards defensive incompetency/disinterest.
 
Butch said:
I'm with Cuban on this, you don't reward incompetence. Make your damn free throws. I know I can't.
Expand ...

I couldn't disagree more. According to the Merriam-Webster website, to break a rule to gain an advantage at something is called cheating. To not do something here is to reward cheating.
 
I think professional basketball players should be able to shoot >50% of their free throws but that's just me.
 
Waquoit said:
I couldn't disagree more. According to the Merriam-Webster website, to break a rule to gain an advantage at something is called cheating. To not do something here is to reward cheating.
Expand ...
So should teams with fouls to give at the end of a game not be able to run some time off the shot clock on defense and then foul to make the other team take the ball out again and restart their offense? Should teams not be able to give hard fouls to prevent dunks? It's all breaking a rule to gain an advantage.
 
7774 said:
So should teams with fouls to give at the end of a game not be able to run some time off the shot clock on defense and then foul to make the other team take the ball out again and restart their offense? Should teams not be able to give hard fouls to prevent dunks? It's all breaking a rule to gain an advantage.
Expand ...
Of course you play to win. That the punishment for breaking the rules in some cases isn't enough to deter the rule breaking is a flaw of the game. That's one reason why rules get adjusted. In the current case, I agree that deliberate off-the-ball fouls need to be discouraged.
 
The answer is very simple (and effective).

Give the team that has been fouled the option to inbound the ball instead of having to shoot the foul shot(s).

Problem solved.
 
This is an It's a Business Baby fix.
 
Waquoit said:
Of course you play to win. That the punishment for breaking the rules in some cases isn't enough to deter the rule breaking is a flaw of the game. That's one reason why rules get adjusted. In the current case, I agree that deliberate off-the-ball fouls need to be discouraged.
Expand ...
Ok, so you don't actually think it's cheating.
 
Is this right?

You can't just foul the crappy FT shooter if he's not in the play. If you do, you don't get the ball. The offense retains possession after the single foul shot.
 
Waquoit said:
I couldn't disagree more. According to the Merriam-Webster website, to break a rule to gain an advantage at something is called cheating. To not do something here is to reward cheating.
Expand ...
Committing a foul is not breaking the rules of the game, it is something explicitly covered by the rules of the game, it is a major part of the game. That's like saying a pitcher issuing a walk is cheating, and therefore intentional walks should be outlawed.
 
Am I wrong or is saying "DONT REWARD INCOMPETENCE" basically like whining about baseball letting pitchers have a guy bat for them?

"Hey pitchers, learn how to hit already, were not bending the rules for you anymore!!!!'
 
Onions said:
Committing a foul is not breaking the rules of the game, it is something explicitly covered by the rules of the game, it is a major part of the game.
Expand ...
Of course committing a foul is breaking rules of the game. That's why you get free throws. So is dribbling out of bounds. That's why you lose possession. I don't think a foul in the play of the game is cheating. Stuff happens. But an intentional foul? I think that's cheating. The fact that everyone does it, doesn't make it less of a deliberate breaking of the rules for personal advantage.
 
Onions said:
That's like saying a pitcher issuing a walk is cheating, and therefore intentional walks should be outlawed.
Expand ...

Actually, it's nothing like a walk in baseball. All the rulebook mandates is that "the pitcher deliver the pitch to the batter", there is no requirement that the pitch be in the strike zone. OTOH, a foul is described as illegal physical contact.
 
Waquoit said:
Actually, it's nothing like a walk in baseball. All the rulebook mandates is that "the pitcher deliver the pitch to the batter", there is no requirement that the pitch be in the strike zone. OTOH, a foul is described as illegal physical contact.
Expand ...
Intentionally breaking a rule and accepting the penalty is not cheating, it's strategy, i.e., taking a delay of game penalty to get better punting position. Secretly breaking a rule in order to gain an advantage AND avoid a penalty (corking a bat, loading up a spitter, deflating a football) is cheating.
 
prankster said:
The answer is very simple (and effective).

Give the team that has been fouled the option to inbound the ball instead of having to shoot the foul shot(s).

Problem solved.
Expand ...
I think most teams would opt for the chance to make 2 free throws and expect their players to make them. Why risk an inbound pass when you have the chance to score? (I would put my guy on the line).


I would treat it like a technical foul. The offense gets to pick a guy to take 1 free throw, and the offense keeps the ball. I'm talking about obvious fouls on a man without the ball and away from the play.
 
Waquoit said:
Actually, it's nothing like a walk in baseball. All the rulebook mandates is that "the pitcher deliver the pitch to the batter", there is no requirement that the pitch be in the strike zone. OTOH, a foul is described as illegal physical contact.
Expand ...

Calling it "cheating" because it's illegal is like calling a foul because there's contact. While you may be "technically" correct, most of the rational world understands the massive grey area between "cheating" and "breaking a rule" just like most of the rational world understands the massive grey area between a "foul" and "contact".



NBA.com - RULE NO. 12-FOULS AND PENALTIES
B. Personal Foul

Section I--Types
a. A player shall not hold, push, charge into, impede the progress of an opponent by extending a hand, forearm, leg or knee or by bending the body into a position that is not normal. Contact that results in the re-routing of an opponent is a foul which must be called immediately.
b. Contact initiated by the defensive player guarding a player with the ball is not legal. This contact includes, but is not limited to, forearm, hands, or body check.
 
For those who don't think the rule should be changed: do you think it's acceptable that bad free throw shooters are alleviated from having to shoot the two free throws via the intentional foul in the final two minutes of a game?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
259
Guests online
1,148
Total visitors
1,407
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,054
Messages
4,380,458
Members
10,172
Latest member
mangers


.
..
Top Bottom