Hack-A-Shaq to be reviewed in the offseason

[Treesquid PhD]

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.

The difference is Shaq and the only reason this is even talked about is because Shaq is a game changer, it's not an issue with Skinner, he is a dime a dozen player, you can take him out of the game and you lose almost nothing (maybe his fouls). So no one is going to change rules because hack a Skinner doesn't completely change the game. I guess at somepoint another super star will go through the same issue, so it makes sense to fix the rule now.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

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.

Also, there is a dead ball, you could take Shaq out of the game to prevent the foul over and over again.

 

[da_suns_fan]

Also, there is a dead ball, you could take Shaq out of the game to prevent the foul over and over again.

Unless your Mike D'Antoni in which you bring him IN to the game during this period as he did with three minutes left in the first quarter of game 5.

I almost fell out of my seat.

"We concede to the hack-a-shaq strategy. We think we can score more with Shaq on the line than the you can playing normal basketball".

 

[ambchang_]

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.

The rule was modified in the Wilt Chamberlain days. The rule was reviewed, but was never changed.

Problem for the league
Just as had been the case with Chamberlain decades earlier, the using of off-the-ball intentional fouling against O'Neal became somewhat problematic for the NBA. During the 2000 NBA Playoffs, there were two games in particular, one involving the Portland Trail Blazers and one involving the Indiana Pacers, in which the Hack-a-Shaq defense was employed by those two teams against the Lakers so relentlessly as to render the games virtually unwatchable with their incessant stoppages for foul shots. As a result, there was some discussion of expanding the off-the-ball foul rule to encompass more than just the final two minutes of the game, or instituting some other rule change which would discourage the use of Hack-a-Shaq.
Ultimately though, the NBA decided at that time not to adopt any new rules designed specifically to discourage the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. One factor cited in that decision was that the Lakers won both of the aforementioned games. 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.
Continued use of the strategy in ensuing seasons — particularly in high profile playoff games — however, has led to increasing displeasure with it on the part of fans and members of the media. As a result, in 2008, NBA Commissioner David Stern indicated that the league will now consider adopting a rule change to thwart the strategy.

This isn't an everyone-against-the-spurs, but a direct slap at those who say that the league LOVES the Spurs despite Spurs killing ratings.

 

[elindholm]

Also, there is a dead ball, you could take Shaq out of the game to prevent the foul over and over again.

Sure, of course, but then that makes the hacking strategy effective after all. I thought the point was to diminish its effectiveness.

 

[Covert Rain]

Also, there is a dead ball, you could take Shaq out of the game to prevent the foul over and over again.

Again, that would defeat the purpose. You don't want another team to exploit a rule to make you take a player out of the game.

 

[ambchang_]

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?

Do you guys even know the history and application of hack-a-shaq?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_A_Shaq

It was used over and over and over again in the past. The 2-minute rule was done for the sake of Wilt Chamberlain, who, God rest his soul, has passed away a few years ago. The rule was not changed for Shaq.

 

[CardShark]

When you foul someone, you break the rules.



Just because a foul is called, doesn't mean that they didn't break that rule.

Two possible changes to this rule.

If a team intentionally fouls someone away from the ball...:

A) Allow the team to send their best free throw shooter to the line, a la Technical fouls.
B) Allow the team to make a decision to accept the free throws, or decline the foul (like the NFL) and the ball is taken out of bounds.

I think I have a better solution. One free throw and the ball out of bounds.

 

[Andrew]

It's better for the overall image of the league as well as for the play.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

I think I have a better solution. One free throw and the ball out of bounds.

I slightly mentioned this.... as in a technical foul.

 

[Covert Rain]

I think I have a better solution. One free throw and the ball out of bounds.

Several people have mentioned that. I think that is probably my favorite solution so far. However, I would want the choice of who shoots the technical free throw.

 

[BigJit]

No matter what new rule the NBA makes, Hack-A-XXX will continue. Teams will simply wait for said player to have the ball in his hands.

I think it's stupid to change the rule now. Shaq has maybe 1-2 years left in him. So lets say they make the "off the ball" foul changes that everyone wants to see. What kind of changes should the league make to help out Shaq when he gets fouled with the ball?

Who cares. This is the FIRST time Hack-A-Shaq has EVER worked for a team. The big dope should be able to make his free throws. IMO

 

[CardShark]

Several people have mentioned that. I think that is probably my favorite solution so far. However, I would want the choice of who shoots the technical free throw.

I hadn't read all of the posts at the time, but I wouldn't make it a technical unless it was excessive. You make it an option for either the ballhandler or the person fouled to take the shot.

 

[CardinalsFan11]

It should just be one shot from anyone on the court and the team takes the ball out.

From a competitive angle hack-a-shaq is great, I'd use it to win. But basketball is entertainment and hack-a-shaq isn't entertaining and needs to be changed.

 

[rgangel27]

It should just be one shot from anyone on the court and the team takes the ball out.

From a competitive angle hack-a-shaq is great, I'd use it to win. But basketball is entertainment and hack-a-shaq isn't entertaining and needs to be changed.

 

[rgangel27]

No matter what new rule the NBA makes, Hack-A-XXX will continue. Teams will simply wait for said player to have the ball in his hands.

I think it's stupid to change the rule now. Shaq has maybe 1-2 years left in him. So lets say they make the "off the ball" foul changes that everyone wants to see. What kind of changes should the league make to help out Shaq when he gets fouled with the ball?

Who cares. This is the FIRST time Hack-A-Shaq has EVER worked for a team. The big dope should be able to make his free throws. IMO

If you could fix an issue that you foresee to just continue and pop up again later on..why not mend it now?

They are reviewing it already and doing all the thinking for the NBA.. all we have to do is sit and wait for whatever they decide on... it really isnt something to get fluttered about.

Its not about Shaq alone.. its about discouraging teams from abusing the loophole in the system that disrupts the entertainment part of the NBA..which we know should be entertaining.

 

[justAndy]

The rules as presently followed by the Spurs make a game so torturous to watch that even though they have 4 championships in the last decade they are the least bandwagoned team in all pro sports.
Not even the usual heartless frontunning fake "fans" want to be associated with such an ugly product.
You know - like a "fan" that claims the Lakers, Yankees, Redwings and Patriots.

 

[BigJit]

It's still stupid to review & change it now. Lets be honest, how often has HACK-A-XXX been done? Not any where near the amount one would be led to believe by reading some of the posts from members in here. People are acting like this happens in every NBA game across the league! Lets be real, it barely happens. And when a team does use the HACK-A-XXX it never works, other than this one time with the Spurs vs the Suns.

But sure, great idea, lets help the teams that have players with no fundamental skills in shooting a basketball uncontested from 15 feet get the benefit by letting those on their team that can. LAME!

 

[CardinalsFan11]

It's still stupid to review & change it now. Lets be honest, how often has HACK-A-XXX been done? Not any where near the amount one would be led to believe by reading some of the posts from members in here. People are acting like this happens in every NBA game across the league! Lets be real, it barely happens. And when a team does use the HACK-A-XXX it never works, other than this one time with the Spurs vs the Suns.

But sure, great idea, lets help the teams that have players with no fundamental skills in shooting a basketball uncontested from 15 feet get the benefit by letting those on their team that can. LAME!

Again I go back to the fact that by changing the rule you're not helping a player who can't make a free-throw, you're helping make your product more enjoyable to your customers.

From a competitive stand point, it's great but from an entertainment standpoint (which is what basketball should be, entertaining) it terrible.

 

[BigJit]

And once again, I am asking what's wrong with the product now??

Again, you say that as if to say this is a common thing that happens nightly with every team accross the league. Hack a whoever rarely ever happens.

So everyone wants Stern to take away all the competitive aspects away from the game so that he may "entertain" his viewers. LAME.

I thought that in sport competition was more important than entertaining. Ask the Spurs. They can care less if they are the lowest rated team to be viewed in the NBA Finals. They just want to be competitive and win rather than be entertaining.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Meh, defining intent isnt always black and white.

BTW, I felt this way when Shaq was a Laker.

the irony is that i felt this rule should have been changed when shaq was a laker. it makes the game boring and really deviates from the way the game is supposed to be played. do you see intentional fouling in pickup games? no, b/c that would be stupid and it has no place in the GAME. i understand it's currently legal on the present rules, but that is why rules should be reviewed, to see if the product can be improved. does anyone other than the fan of the team playing AGAINST shaq (or individuals with a vendetta against shaq) really enjoy watching that in a good game? feh.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

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.

lol, you're starting to think like the spurs - this is like the anti-flop.

 

[nowagimp]

And once again, I am asking what's wrong with the product now??

Again, you say that as if to say this is a common thing that happens nightly with every team accross the league. Hack a whoever rarely ever happens.

So everyone wants Stern to take away all the competitive aspects away from the game so that he may "entertain" his viewers. LAME.

I thought that in sport competition was more important than entertaining. Ask the Spurs. They can care less if they are the lowest rated team to be viewed in the NBA Finals. They just want to be competitive and win rather than be entertaining.

Not sure where youve been over the last 15 years, but the NBA routinely tunes the game to prevent it from being ugly. Rules have been abused and changes have had to be made as coaches push the rules to their limits and distort the game into an unintended form. They stopped calling every foul in the game because it slows the game down and makes it into a foul shooting contest. So they have "no calls" to prevent the game from being too ugly to be competitive with sports audiences. All a modification of hack a shaq does is the same thing, and frankly all the "no calls" have made it easier for coaches to use hack a shaq, since players rarely foul out anymore. It would prevent the game from dragging into a slow foul shooting contest by using intentional off ball fouls. If you want every foul called and dont understand why they ever changed it, fine. If you approve of the "no calls", "let em play" philosophy, your argument against hack a xxx reforms is inconsistent.

 

[Irish]

I honestly don't remember "Hack a Shaq" being used off the ball when he was with the Lakers. Yes, everybody would foul him when he got the ball in close rather than giv up an easy 2; but 60 feet from the basket?

BTW, one option would be for the refs to simply not calls those fouls. Stern could simply instruct the refs not to call those fouls anymore, meaning fouling teams would have to get so severe it would generate the current extra penatly calls.

 

[BigJit]

Not sure where youve been over the last 15 years, but the NBA routinely tunes the game to prevent it from being ugly. Rules have been abused and changes have had to be made as coaches push the rules to their limits and distort the game into an unintended form. They stopped calling every foul in the game because it slows the game down and makes it into a foul shooting contest. So they have "no calls" to prevent the game from being too ugly to be competitive with sports audiences. All a modification of hack a shaq does is the same thing, and frankly all the "no calls" have made it easier for coaches to use hack a shaq, since players rarely foul out anymore. It would prevent the game from dragging into a slow foul shooting contest by using intentional off ball fouls. If you want every foul called and dont understand why they ever changed it, fine. If you approve of the "no calls", "let em play" philosophy, your argument against hack a xxx reforms is inconsistent.

I understand the League "fine tuning" their rules to improve whatever they feel needs to be improved. Every league does it. Their are new rules every year from the NFL, NHL & NBA. That's fine. But were not talking about ALL the fine tuning rule changes that a league makes to improve the game the way they see fit. We are talking about THIS rule. The Hack a Shaq rule. When the simple fact is that this would be a NON factor in the game if the big dope can actually make an uncontested 15 foot shot! There would be no such thing as Hack A Shaq if he could make his free throws! What annoys me is that everyone is quick to jump on the "yeah, it ruins the game" bandwagon. I call BS. No one would hack the big slob if he could make his free throws! If he actually made his free throws, their would be no Hack a Shaq for the league to look into!