• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Changing the Rules on Fouls & Freethrows

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Douglar

Intentionally Grounded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
10,275
Reaction score
23,598
Points
135
I suspect that the league will eventually change the rules to allow side outs instead of free throws.

It will get rid of "hack a player" and cleanup those game ending where the last 60 seconds of game time takes 25 minutes.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...anging-intentional-foul-rules-im-on-the-fence

It's easy to say that players just need to make their free throws. If you're not personally invested in the quality of the product, then that's a risk-free position to take. If you're in Silver's position, though, it should be clear that something needs to be done. It'll ultimately be up to the competition committee, but let's think about this logically for a minute. Every rule change the NBA has instituted in the last couple of decades has been about speeding up the game, encouraging ball movement, facilitating a more aesthetically pleasing brand of basketball. If the league wanted to do something about slow-it-down, isolation ball, why in the world would it be OK with totally disrupting the rhythm of games so we can watch big men brick free throws?

You can't blame teams for employing the tactic, but let's remember that one of its chief practitioners, San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich, has said it looks awful. He and others will continue doing it, though, until the league decides to make sure it's not a winning proposition. We're at the point where the Boston Celtics decided to intentionally foul Cleveland Cavaliers big man Tristan Thompson away from the ball in the first quarter of a playoff game on Thursday, so I'd say it's time.
 
Fuck that noise. Make the damn free throws.

And douglar, in the last 120 seconds, a foul off the ball gives the team one shot and possession. So I'm not sure why you are talking about the last 60 seconds. That's not what this is about.
 
Fuck that noise. Make the damn free throws.

And douglar, in the last 120 seconds, a foul off the ball gives the team one shot and possession. So I'm not sure why you are talking about the last 60 seconds. That's not what this is about.
Because if you were allowed to take side outs in the last 60 seconds, people wouldn't be able to come back in a game by fouling late. The team would just take side-out with 14 seconds of shot clock to kill. And this would make those excruciating games where a team down 7 with 60 seconds left draws the game out for 20 minutes.
 
What's funny to me is they intentionally fouled Thompson, a 64% free throw shooter.

You only intentionally foul a player if they are below 50%.
 
Because if you were allowed to take side outs in the last 60 seconds, people wouldn't be able to come back in a game by fouling late. The team would just take side-out with 14 seconds of shot clock to kill. And this would make those excruciating games where a team down 7 with 60 seconds left draws the game out for 20 minutes.
I get that, but it is a different issue.

I have always found it ironic that basketball has an 'Intentional Foul' rule - yet never applies it at the end of games. Or during hack-a-Shaq.

I don't want anything to change though. Changing the sport for a few bad shooters would be a huge mistake.

Edit: Also, if you just choose to take a side out, what's stopping the opposing team from going super hard at steals each in bounds pass, until they come up with a steal. Foul the guy or get the steal in less than one second.

You'll have teams being ultra aggressive trying to take the ball, just hoping the refs dont blow the whistle. And if they do, just do it again...and again...and again....1 inbounds pass and foul every 1 second...

That would be way worse.

Bottom line: Do not change anything.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Also, if you just choose to take a side out, what's stopping the opposing team from going super hard at steals each in bounds pass, until they come up with a steal. Foul the guy or get the steal in less than one second.
Well, players will foul out, eventually, so that's stopping them. And also the team could choose to take free throws once they get it in to the player they want shooting free throws.
 
Well, players will foul out, eventually, so that's stopping them. And also the team could choose to take free throws once they get it in to the player they want shooting free throws.

Isn't the issue fouling a poor free throw shooter who is off the ball? I think @Rob 's point is still valid regardless of who catches the ball. And it would take a great deal of possessions before a team would find it to be a losing proposition.

I tend to agree with him, the side-out solution isn't a solution at all.

However, I feel that if a team will field a player who can't make free throws, then that is on them; the opposition should not be penalized for exploiting this fact.

If they want to speed up the game, simply enforce the already existing rules - which would likely reduce the number of foul shots many players get as it is.
 
Last edited:
Well, players will foul out, eventually, so that's stopping them. And also the team could choose to take free throws once they get it in to the player they want shooting free throws.
Why would they take free throws if they could keep in bounding the ball and wasting time?

It is a horrible idea that will never happen. The end of games are never being touched.

Lets move on to the real discussion - which is Hack-A-Shaq...
 
Why would they take free throws if they could keep in bounding the ball and wasting time?

It is a horrible idea that will never happen. The end of games are never being touched.

Lets move on to the real discussion - which is Hack-A-Shaq...
I like the idea of giving the team a choice. If they suck at free throws, they might trust in bounds plays to run time off the clock. If a team is good at shooting free throws, they might take the freebies and trust their D. It would certainly give the team that's in the lead a bigger advantage, as they'd dictate how the game finishes, instead of the trailing team.

As far as the Hack-A-Shaq argument, I don't think Hack-A-Shaq giving you the option of side out vs. free throws would be separated from any other opportunity to get free throws, so that's why it's part of the discussion.

Is it a good idea? I don't know. I don't really like the end of games as is, and I certainly don't like how slowed down the game becomes when teams implement Hack-A-Shaq.
 
I think this is more about protecting the egos.

Make your stinkin' foul shots.

And again - you want to speed up the game??? Stop calling every dang ticky tack "foul" and you'll be fine.
 
Side out would ruin basketball. Especially at the end of the game for reasons I've already mentioned.
 
Because if you were allowed to take side outs in the last 60 seconds, people wouldn't be able to come back in a game by fouling late. The team would just take side-out with 14 seconds of shot clock to kill. And this would make those excruciating games where a team down 7 with 60 seconds left draws the game out for 20 minutes.

But the problem being argued is the intentional off the ball fouling well before 60 seconds left.

Do you do this the whole game? That basically just allows every single bad FT shooter off the hook.

For a very, very long time everyone was ok with the penalty for fouling. It was allowing the other team to shoot wide open, uninterrupted shots from a fairly close distance. Now, apparently, that penalty is no longer enough.

I just don't agree. One team fouls, the other team gets to shoot free throws. That's enough of an award for the infraction committed.
 
For a very, very long time everyone was ok with the penalty for fouling. It was allowing the other team to shoot wide open, uninterrupted shots from a fairly close distance. Now, apparently, that penalty is no longer enough.

I think the 3 point shot is slowing leading to more intentional fouling and people are just starting to figure out why that is. Used to be two points or two free throws. You could not catch a team by intentional fouling as long as the other team made their free throws and didn't foul the shooter. Now a team has a chance to gain ground even if the fouled team makes their free throws. It even goes both ways, where sometimes a team with a 3 point lead will intentionally foul at to prevent the other team from getting a three point shot in at the buzzer.

The "hacka-player" strategy isn't usually a good payoff if the shooter hits better than 50% from the line, but if a team intentionally fouls at the end of quarters to prevent their opponent from getting the last shot of the period, the strategy has a decent chance of a positive pay off even if the fouled player shoots 70%, because the fouling team gets to take the last shot of the quarter. That "extra shot" more than offsets the cost of giving up the free throws, especially if the opponent has been scoring well that game from the floor.

In some ways, basketball is slow to change. It took coaches 25 years to discover that taking a lot of 3 point shots was a good idea. As teams have learned that, they are starting to discover that intentional fouling is a way to prevent the other team from taking 3 point shots. I think intentional fouling is going to slowly get worse as more teams figure out how to make it work to their advantage.

They've changed the rule in the past. I think we'll eventually see another change in the free throw rules that makes intentional fouling less attractive.

Here's a brief history of intentional fouling---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack-a-Shaq

Wilt Chamberlain was such a great player and dominant force that he would be certain to be on the floor in late-game situations if the score was close. ... Just as the opposition was eager to send Chamberlain to the free throw line because of his ineptitude there, Chamberlain himself was reluctant to go for that same reason. This led to the spectacle of virtually an entire other game .... outside of the basketball game being played, as Chamberlain essentially played a game of tag with defenders, attempting to run from and dodge them as they chased him trying to foul him.

The NBA decided to address this undesirable situation by instituting a new rule....The new rule stated that if the defensive team commits an off-the-ball foul within the last two minutes of the game, the offensive team would be allowed to keep possession of the ball after the awarding of either one or two free throws.
...
[Don] Nelson would be [the first to use the Hack-a] strategy even in the absence of any late-game need to stop the clock, he would be free to use it with greater than two minutes left to play. Thus, the off-the-ball foul rule would not apply.
...
Nelson first employed the tactic against Dennis Rodman ... in 1997. Rodman was shooting free throws at 38% on the season entering that game. ...In that game, Rodman shot 9-for-12 from the free throw line, completely nullifying the strategy ... Nelson revisited the strategy in 1999, this time against Shaquille O'Neal (52% free throw shooting over his career). And this time, some other NBA coaches chose to follow his lead and also employ the strategy against O'Neal. ...

Ultimately, though, the NBA decided at that time not to adopt any new rules designed specifically to discourage the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. .... Since the strategy had not worked well enough to provide a win for either of the teams that had used it, there seemed to be reason to hope that its use would not become widespread.
...
Coach Gregg Popovich of the San Antonio Spurs used the Hack-a-Shaq strategy successfully in Game 5 of the Spurs' 2008 first round series against O'Neal and the Phoenix Suns ... Popovich used the tactic "to eliminate 3-point attempts" and with 25 seconds or less at the end of quarters to get the ball back for the Spurs to gain the last possession.
...
Increasing displeasure on the part of fans and the media with the continued use of the strategy in ensuing seasons—particularly in high profile playoff games—prompted the league in 2008 to revisit the possibility of a rule change.[16] However, discussion of the issue at the league's competition committee meeting that year failed to yield adequate support for the idea.[17]

 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top