I hate the Hack a bad free throw shooter strategy. But the Cavs did it to the Clips last night and it totally killed them and took them out of the game mentally. It's not a bad tactic if we find ourselves down 10 in the third quarter or something.
That said, I hope they change the rule. After tonight's game 
the rule should be... any intentional foul (unless it's in the last 2 minutes of either half) is two foul-shots AND you get the ball. in the last two minutes of either half, i have no problem with intentionally fouling, then and only then is when there is strategy involved.
Blake Griffin out. If we limit Paul/Crawford we have a real shot. However, with our guards Chris Paul will shred them.
Foul the same player 3 times in a row when over the limit, you get the free throws and a technical (shot by anyone) or possession.
The other night Houston turned the Detroit game into a mockery in a loss.
Not sure what principal fans think they are protecting here?
This has been going on for a few years with Jordan and he's still bad. It simply is NOT motivation for bad free throw shooters who don't try to get better. Of course Jordan has tried to get better. It just doesn't work that way.
Knickoftime wrote:Foul the same player 3 times in a row when over the limit, you get the free throws and a technical (shot by anyone) or possession. The other night Houston turned the Detroit game into a mockery in a loss.
Not sure what principal fans think they are protecting here?
This has been going on for a few years with Jordan and he's still bad. It simply is NOT motivation for bad free throw shooters who don't try to get better. Of course Jordan has tried to get better. It just doesn't work that way.
It's weird that the rules has been around allowing this strategy for years... did teams ever do this against Shaq? You would think it would be a decent way to stop him. Did Pop use this against Shaq? I know Pop has used it a fair amount against Deandre and Dwight.
I think we just found a role for Sasha that everyone can get on board with!
I hate the hack-a-shaq strategy though, especially early on in the game. Aside from it being boring for the fans to watch, the fouling team gets their own guys into foul trouble, and unless you're doing it EVERY damn time down the floor, you run the risk of bumping into a Chris Paul or JJ Reddick and giving them 2 free attempts to kill your own momentum since you're already in the penalty.
It definitely needs to be addressed with a rule change in some form.
JrZyHuStLa wrote:Blake Griffin out. If we limit Paul/Crawford we have a real shot. However, with our guards Chris Paul will shred them.
Paul is on my fantasy team so I need a big game from him but i hope we hold everyone else in check 
Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
I agree. You want them to stop using that strategy? Hit your damn free throws!!
markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
Because it makes for games that are awful to watch.
NYKBocker wrote:markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
I agree. You want them to stop using that strategy? Hit your damn free throws!!
So if your favorite team is playing Detroit or LA, you WANT to watch an opposing player go to the line 36 times?
That's a enjoyable experience for you?
Knickoftime wrote:NYKBocker wrote:markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
I agree. You want them to stop using that strategy? Hit your damn free throws!!
So if your favorite team is playing Detroit or LA, you WANT to watch an opposing player go to the line 36 times? That's a enjoyable experience for you?
If we win then yes.
who the heck will guard KP? The knicks need to run some serious high low action with Lopez and KP.
NYKBocker wrote:Knickoftime wrote:NYKBocker wrote:markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
I agree. You want them to stop using that strategy? Hit your damn free throws!!
So if your favorite team is playing Detroit or LA, you WANT to watch an opposing player go to the line 36 times? That's a enjoyable experience for you?
If we win then yes.
So you've never seen a bad game your team has won.
Consider yourself lucky. I'm seen some awful ones.
Dear Knicks,
Please crush Paul Pierce.
Kind regards,
Smackeddog
my take on the hack a player is this. Its fine, if that player has the ball or its a basketball play. Just mugging a random guy on the floor because he's the weakest FT shooter strikes me as an exploitation of a rule, rather than a legit strategy to win the game. I would treat those fouls as techs. 2 shots and the ball which you have to inbound. Just my 2c
fishmike wrote:my take on the hack a player is this. Its fine, if that player has the ball or its a basketball play. Just mugging a random guy on the floor because he's the weakest FT shooter strikes me as an exploitation of a rule, rather than a legit strategy to win the game. I would treat those fouls as techs. 2 shots and the ball which you have to inbound. Just my 2c
I agree. I think they should change the rule. Even if it was one shot and the ball it would completely stop the practice.
fishmike wrote:my take on the hack a player is this. Its fine, if that player has the ball or its a basketball play. Just mugging a random guy on the floor because he's the weakest FT shooter strikes me as an exploitation of a rule, rather than a legit strategy to win the game. I would treat those fouls as techs. 2 shots and the ball which you have to inbound. Just my 2c
Right, if you want to go by the spirit of the rule, you need to penalize the team who fouls. You can also simply give team the choice of the foul shots or new shot clock & possession.
Knickoftime wrote:markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
Because it makes for games that are awful to watch.
If fans stop watching, then the NBA might have to have a look at it (sort of like the introduction of the no backpass rule in soccer after the 1990 world cup). But short of that, I don't see this as a compelling reason for a rule change.
Compare: fans likes dunks....why not make the baskets shorter so we can have more of those, as it would make for a better game to watch.
markvmc wrote:Knickoftime wrote:markvmc wrote:Don't see a problem here myself. A player has a weakness, you use up a team/personal foul to exploit that weakness. Why change the rules to make up for a flaw in a player's game?
Because it makes for games that are awful to watch.
If fans stop watching, then the NBA might have to have a look at it (sort of like the introduction of the no backpass rule in soccer after the 1990 world cup). But short of that, I don't see this as a compelling reason for a rule change.
Compare: fans likes dunks....why not make the baskets shorter so we can have more of those, as it would make for a better game to watch.
Not sure why it requires an emergency situation to address it?
The rule isn't a fundamental aspect of the game. Basketball isn't meant to be a free-throw shooting contest. I don't there is anything core to the game of basketball that says if you get the attention of the ref and grab the jersey and sort of pretend to foul someone, they HAVE to shoot free throws.
It's in fact a bastardization of a rule meant to protect players and the integrity of possessions. The only real argument for it is inertia (its what you're used to), which is always a really bad argument.
Games where teams intentionally foul are not fun to watch for me....how about giving the team the option to shoot foul shots if the player is fouled without the ball? If they decline...shot clock resets (to 14).
