Hack-A-Shaq to be reviewed in the offseason

[ambchang_]

The second the Spurs use it, they change the rules. It has been going on for more than a decade. I guess this is just more evidence that the league LOVES the Spurs, eh?

So Shaq entered the league in 1992, it's now 2008. That is 16 years. The same amount of time for an average person to go from birth to high school. In which time, the same person would have went from not being able to sit up, to learning trigonometry. Since 1992, Japan has gone into a huge recession, and recovered. Canada has seen real estate gone to hell, then rebound to the highest levels ever, China's economy has gone from upstart into a real power, the Soviet Union has adapted to the breakdown of communism, Zimbabwe has gone from one of the richest countries in Afirca to one of the most chaotic, but Shaq can't learn to shoot free throws like a normal person from the local Y can.

So what do you do, you change the rules to accomodate him, makes sense to me.

 

[da_suns_fan]

Agreed. Although it might be hard to differentiate a grabbing foul. Was the player grabbing the guy to prevent him from getting position or was I grabbing him to cause an intentional foul?

Yeah, whats an intentional foul versus non-intentional foul? The Spurs would just foul Shaq away from the ball but try to act like it wasn't itentional.

 

[da_suns_fan]

The second the Spurs use it, they change the rules. It has been going on for more than a decade. I guess this is just more evidence that the league LOVES the Spurs, eh?

So Shaq entered the league in 1992, it's now 2008. That is 16 years. The same amount of time for an average person to go from birth to high school. In which time, the same person would have went from not being able to sit up, to learning trigonometry. Since 1992, Japan has gone into a huge recession, and recovered. Canada has seen real estate gone to hell, then rebound to the highest levels ever, China's economy has gone from upstart into a real power, the Soviet Union has adapted to the breakdown of communism, Zimbabwe has gone from one of the richest countries in Afirca to one of the most chaotic, but Shaq can't learn to shoot free throws like a normal person from the local Y can.

So what do you do, you change the rules to accomodate him, makes sense to me.

The Spurs took a huge dump on the rule book and brought new heights to their level of "boring-ness". EVERYONE thinks the rule needs to be changed except Spurs fans.

 

[MigratingOsprey]

Yeah, whats an intentional foul versus non-intentional foul? The Spurs would just foul Shaq away from the ball but try to act like it wasn't itentional.

an intentional foul is called in college and in the NBA there is no such thing?!

 

[Covert Rain]

EVERYONE thinks the rule needs to be changed except Spurs fans.

Man...the foul stench of the Suns 1st round loss must be still be lingering. It's attracting trolls.

 

[ambchang_]

The Spurs took a huge dump on the rule book and brought new heights to their level of "boring-ness". EVERYONE thinks the rule needs to be changed except Spurs fans.

You mean Phil Jackson doing this to Bowen wasn't taking a huge dump on the rule book? Don Nelson doing this to Shaq a decade ago wasn't?

Yes, because the Spurs used it, it was boring and destroys the game, but as long as exciting teams like the Warriors or the Lakers are using it, it's perfectly fine.

 

[Rab]

You mean Phil Jackson doing this to Bowen wasn't taking a huge dump on the rule book? Don Nelson doing this to Shaq a decade ago wasn't?

Yes, because the Spurs used it, it was boring and destroys the game, but as long as exciting teams like the Warriors or the Lakers are using it, it's perfectly fine.

They've already modified the rule once because of other teams using the Hack-A-Shaq. Now they think it might not be enough.

It was David Stern's idea after watching the series that this should be something brought up again.

Stop making this into "everyone against the Spurs" thread.

 

[Trophytown]

On the outside lookin in, this all would seem like "sour grapes". Hack-A-Shaq is gamesmanship. If Shaq works on his free-throw technique and improves his shot, this is a non-issue. Why make a rule for ineptness and the charity stripe ? Only Shaq can heal this Hack-A-Shaq problem. Not the league.

 

[Bufalay]

Here are a couple more rule changes that I'd like to see.

1. It is not legal for a defender to lean on an offensive player when that player is dribbling (Bruce Bowen Rule)
2. It is illegal for an offensive player, while in the post, to push a defensive player using the ball (Tim Duncan Rule).
3. If you look like a baby while whining after a no call you get boonks (Spurs/Suns /Antoine Walker rule)

 

[Covert Rain]

On the outside lookin in, this all would seem like "sour grapes". Hack-A-Shaq is gamesmanship. If Shaq works on his free-throw technique and improves his shot, this is a non-issue. Why make a rule for ineptness and the charity stripe ? Only Shaq can heal this Hack-A-Shaq problem. Not the league.

Because it's not gamesmanship. It's exploitation of a rule that was put in place to stop it in the first place. Also, this is not a Shaq only rule. He is just the name they attached. It's used on other players as well.

Fouling off ball is not gamesmanship. Fouling off ball to exploit a rule is not gamesmanship.

 

[CaptainInsano]

They tried to make a new rule to take the hack-a-shaq out (the 2 minute rule) and never thought anybody would be lame/insane enough to find a way to somehow use it again.

Well, pops proved that one wrong, so they are taking a look at it again.

It is not an anti-spurs thing. Hack a shaq in the middle of a quarter destroys most of the flow and fan enjoyment of the game, just now not the last 2 minutes but possibly for the rest of the entire quarter. People hate seeing that, the 2 minute rule was meant to stop it period, and of course stern failed miserably in a rule implementation (same as the blocking vs charging vs the restricted arc vs superstar treatment aka lebron never charges bs that I hate and ruins part of the game for me). What else is new?

 

[D-Dogg]

Maybe I wasn't clear.

What Im saying is if there was an away from the ball foul when the team fouling is already over the limit, the team that was fouled should simply have the option of:

1) The player fouled gets two free throws
2) The team gets possession of the ball out of bounds.

I don't like the "anyone can take the free throws" idea. Imagine if Amare was called for an offensive away from the ball foul when the Suns were over the limit. Lets say he fouled Oberto. This would mean Ginobili would get to take the free throws.

Thats just silly to me.

Offensive fouls don't give free throws.

 

[da_suns_fan]

Offensive fouls don't give free throws.

Ok...well if Amare commits a foul away from the ball on Oberto when the Suns are over the limit. Its not intentional, just ran through a screen or something.

Two free throws for Ginobili?

No way!

 

[D-Dogg]

Ok...well if Amare commits a foul away from the ball on Oberto when the Suns are over the limit. Its not intentional, just ran through a screen or something.

Two free throws for Ginobili?

No way!

No, because that wouldn't be an intentional foul.

If Amare went over and grabbed Oberto for no reason, that would be an intentional foul.

I'd rather just keep it the way it is, personally...but if it must be tinkered with I like making it result in sure points.

 

[elindholm]

The choice is a bad idea because it doesn't penalize the defense. The Spurs foul O'Neal and the Suns decide to take the ball out of bounds. What next? The Spurs foul O'Neal again, and then again, and then again. Great. Now the game becomes a race to see whether the Suns can get a shot up before the Spurs foul O'Neal. That's no improvement at all.

Judging whether a foul is "intentional" is never going to work. You'll just get players who become skilled at making an intentional foul appear like an accident.

The simple solution is that an away-from-the ball foul should result in one technical-like (dead ball) free throw, with the original team retaining possession. (Isn't that the same thing they do for fouls on inbounds plays before the ball is in play?) It doesn't matter much to me who gets to shoot the free throw; it could be argued either way.

 

[da_suns_fan]

The choice is a bad idea because it doesn't penalize the defense. The Spurs foul O'Neal and the Suns decide to take the ball out of bounds. What next? The Spurs foul O'Neal again, and then again, and then again. Great. Now the game becomes a race to see whether the Suns can get a shot up before the Spurs foul O'Neal. That's no improvement at all.

The simple solution is that an away-from-the ball foul should result in one technical-like (dead ball) free throw, with the original team retaining possession. (Isn't that the same thing they do for fouls on inbounds plays before the ball is in play?) It doesn't matter much to me who gets to shoot the free throw; it could be argued either way.

Eh...no. Because eventually the Spurs would run out of fouls.

Isn't it freaking crazy that we're wondering about this? Popovic has absolutely NO SHAME.

 

[Covert Rain]

The choice is a bad idea because it doesn't penalize the defense. The Spurs foul O'Neal and the Suns decide to take the ball out of bounds. What next? The Spurs foul O'Neal again, and then again, and then again. Great. Now the game becomes a race to see whether the Suns can get a shot up before the Spurs foul O'Neal. That's no improvement at all.

Judging whether a foul is "intentional" is never going to work. You'll just get players who become skilled at making an intentional foul appear like an accident.

The simple solution is that an away-from-the ball foul should result in one technical-like (dead ball) free throw, with the original team retaining possession. (Isn't that the same thing they do for fouls on inbounds plays before the ball is in play?) It doesn't matter much to me who gets to shoot the free throw; it could be argued either way.

Except the Spurs would quickly run out of fouls and send someone to the free throw line. I think again it it was off the ball foul and your team was over the limit, you would have the the option to send your best FT shooter to the foul line.

Then again, I would also be OK with one shot and the ball out of bounds.

 

[justAndy]

The hack thing - no issue to me.
Pro basketball players should be able to make 60% of their ft's.
D'Antoni's refusal to hack is based on PRINCIPLE - that don't win games, though.
However - the abortion that was the end of the 3rd quarter in game 2 of the Det/Orl series - why did the refs not stop the action and reset the clock?
What a stupid rule - technology is available to review that kind of thing, but it's against the rules?

 

[dodie53]

stern loves the suns?

 

[btimsah]

stern loves the suns?

Here goes Dodie again trying to up his post count.. lol j/k

 

[cly2tw]

What's the definition of "techinical foul" anyway? Doesn't Hack-a-Shaq fit the spirit of "techinical foul"?

Actually, a flagrant foul should be considered two technicals, in order to optimally deter them from occurring.

The simple solution is that an away-from-the ball foul should result in one technical-like (dead ball) free throw, with the original team retaining possession. (Isn't that the same thing they do for fouls on inbounds plays before the ball is in play?) It doesn't matter much to me who gets to shoot the free throw; it could be argued either way.

Speaking of great minds.

 

[elindholm]

Speaking of great minds.

Oops, sorry, I got sloppy about reading the whole thread before I posted.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

The solution is for ONeal to retire, then it becomes a non issue, no player in NBA history has been so dominant (much less so now) and incompetent as Shaq.

 

[Irish]

The solution is for ONeal to retire, then it becomes a non issue, no player in NBA history has been so dominant (much less so now) and incompetent as Shaq.

Wilt averaged only 51.1% from the line.

Shaq had a childhood injury that makes it hard to flex his wrst (or so I've read). I doubt he's ever going to be more than a 60% guy even if he focuses on it.

The harder issue is with Skinner. Here is a guy who can hit jump shots but was very bad at the line. A rule change would be huge for his career.

 

[rgangel27]

Just think of basketball as entertainment. It should be entertaining! It should make people want to watch the game because they are curious and excited to see what the players and coaches would do to win the game.

It shouldn't be predictable and boring. It shouldnt stop them from watching a game because they know that the other team will just be using Hack a Ben , Hack a Boone or Hack a Shaq every last 5 minutes of every quarter.

Phoenix losing a playoff series to a very talented and experienced defensive team like the Spurs....I could take ....but dont make me suffer by letting me watch 12 minutes of Hack a Shaq every single game during the Playoffs! I should be concentrating on how the Spurs will be stopping Amare but instead Im waiting for how , who , when , where will Shaq be fouled.

This isnt about one particular team or player. Its about fans watching here in America and the BILLIONS of basketball lovers staying tuned around the world.