Silver about to kill Hack-A-Shaq

[rt0307]

Adam Silver says the NBA will have “full-throated” conversations about “Hack-a-Shaq” rules this summer http://t.co/cg5ZYubnia

— Bleacher Report (@BleacherReport) April 25, 2015

Spurs loved doing it... Monty tried it in game 2... may soon be no more

[Tip-Off]

I don't think they can do much about it...fouling is part of the game. Make the free-throws and stop it.

[rt0307]

I don't think they can do much about it...fouling is part of the game. Make the free-throws and stop it.

treating those kind of fouls like technical fouls (FT by anyone on court & possession) would kill it immediately

that's what it is inside the final 2:00 of the 4th qtr

[N.O.Bronco]

treating those kind of fouls like technical fouls (FT by anyone on court & possession) would kill it immediately

that's what it is inside the final 2:00 of the 4th qtr

Yep, easy fix. Done and done.

[speedyG]

Could allow teams to choose the shooter on non-shooting fouls

[kclaboy504]

I think the rule is stupid. You get fouled the. Make the fts. On the other hand it kills the flow of the game. I think they could just determine all off ball intnetional fouls will allow the team fouled to chose the shooter of the fts as NOB pointed out. I think the fould needs to be intentional tho for that to apply.

[hornetshornets]

How do you decide intent though? A lot of these poor shooting big men set screens, so teams could just wait for that to foul a Dwight or Deandre Jordan. It's off ball and may or may not be intentional (fighting through a screen). Or loose ball fouls when they get rebounds. Or fouling them when they post up, go for lobs, etc. There are just too many ways to foul someone without being absolutely sure it's intentional that I feel like this rule won't help much

[MichaelMcNamara]

Just give the team the option to decline. Works okay on football

[luigi modelo]

It doesn't happen enough to make a change, imo

[DirtySouf]

It doesn't happen enough to make a change, imo

Agreed... When playing basketball, you try to exploit the other teams' weaknesses. The hack-a-Shaq does that. IMO, being against it is like saying teams shouldn't be allowed to give Tyreke and Asik open jumpers daring them to shoot it.

[tthier2]

Will not happen no matter how much doc and Cp3 cry to the league

[Ogden Park]

Using this strategy is not "exploiting a team's weakness," it is exploiting the lack of a rule . The NBA is a game with a constantly evolving structure, the rules of which are designed to account for competition and entertainment value. Intentionally fouling away from the ball, sometimes 60 feet or more, is not in the spirit of the game nor is it entertaining. Simply put, its not a basketball play. Saying "make your free throws" is a lazy cop-out, as the fouls in question are not within the flow of the game and thus should never be awarded.

The game of basketball is not designed to be a free throw shooting contest. Free throws are a specific component of the game, with a specific purpose. A game's outcome shouldn't be decided on the one player being deemed as designated free throw shooter by the opposing coach. Its asinine and completely against the competitive spirit of the sport.

[Mythrol]

They need to have a serious conversation about flopping. It's the worst thing in the game and doesn't get penalized anywhere near what type of impact it has on a game.

Hacking a bad FT shooter is still penalizing your team. Flopping and getting a fine is nothing.

[Chris]

They need to have a serious conversation about flopping. It's the worst thing in the game and doesn't get penalized anywhere near what type of impact it has on a game.

I fully agree with this. At least with hacking, your team still gets possession of the ball with a chance to score. Flopping actually changes possession of the ball in favor of the other team. Flopping is also the more common of the two.

[DirtySouf]

Using this strategy is not "exploiting a team's weakness," it is exploiting the lack of a rule . The NBA is a game with a constantly evolving structure, the rules of which are designed to account for competition and entertainment value. Intentionally fouling away from the ball, sometimes 60 feet or more, is not in the spirit of the game nor is it entertaining. Simply put, its not a basketball play. Saying "make your free throws" is a lazy cop-out, as the fouls in question are not within the flow of the game and thus should never be awarded.

The game of basketball is not designed to be a free throw shooting contest. Free throws are a specific component of the game, with a specific purpose. A game's outcome shouldn't be decided on the one player being deemed as designated free throw shooter by the opposing coach. Its asinine and completely against the competitive spirit of the sport.

So do we get rid of intentionally fouling at the end of games too when your team is losing? Do we get rid of intentionally fouling a team that needs 3 pointers when you are winning?

I agree that it slows the game down but so does the other scenarios. Furthermore, if they make free throws we are not having this discussion.

[RyanM]

Just give the team the option to decline. Works okay on football

Agreed, this is the best option I have heard

[N.O.Bronco]

So do we get rid of intentionally fouling at the end of games too when your team is losing? Do we get rid of intentionally fouling a team that needs 3 pointers when you are winning?

I agree that it slows the game down but so does the other scenarios. Furthermore, if they make free throws we are not having this discussion.

Doesn't he sort of address that with his premise? The game is structured around balancing competition, the spirit of the game and entertainment. He then goes on to draw a distinction in pointing out that he feels the hack a shack under all circumstances takes away from the premise he layed out.

Frankly it is one of the better arguments I have heard on the subject, well, ever. As someone that is around 70-30 against hack a shack it makes a really convincing case against my 30%.

Great work Ogden!!!!

[MichaelMcNamara]

4th and 3 from the 32 yard line, down 1 with a 4 seconds left. Team A kicks the field goal and its good! But wait, Team B jumped offsides and you know what that means: Automatic first down. No option to decline. Now Team A has one untimed down from the 27 to try to win it again.

We would all agree that would be stupid, right? If a team commits an infraction against another team, it should not FORCE the other team to do something offensively. They should have the option.

I have yet to hear one legit reason to not just simply give the team the choice of whether to shoot free throws or go side out of bounds. Obviously, in the final 2 mins of each half, you have the same rules we have now. But in the other 44, the team has the choice. Simple.

[N.O.Bronco]

I'm cool with either fix tbh. Decline the penalty or the technical foul assessment. Declining the penalty(or choosing what to do as MM puts it) are both fixes I can live with.

[hornetshornets]

Declining the foul and taking it out on the side takes away some of the quick strike abilities teams like Goldenstate and Houston have (because half court defenses can get set). So teams may still intentionally foul because one of the reasons they do it is to upset the rhythm of some of these teams that play with tempo.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Declining the foul and taking it out on the side takes away some of the quick strike abilities teams like Goldenstate and Houston have (because half court defenses can get set). So teams may still intentionally foul because one of the reasons they do it is to upset the rhythm of some of these teams that play with tempo.

Why don't they do that now then, early in quarters?

[N.O.Bronco]

Why don't they do that now then, early in quarters?

What are you talking about? Yeah they do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-S_soY5Jg_Q

[da ThRONe]

Personally I'm fine with the hack-a-whoever strategy. I get why the league wants to change the rules, but in a game where players only get 6 fouls there's only so much intentionally fouling that can be done and it not without it's owe set of negative side affects like most coaching decisions.

[hornetshornets]

Well you don't have unlimited fouls so you pick and choose your spots.

[MichaelMcNamara]

What are you talking about? Yeah they do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-S_soY5Jg_Q

Did you read what I was referring to?

I am saying, that if the answer to slowing the Warriors offense is to foul them and have them take it side out of bounds, why haven't teams done it to the Warriors this year?