Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Hack a Howard

biggunsbob

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
94,789
Employed by the Clippers at the 6:45 mark down 100-94.. He was 3 for 11 before from the FT and now 3 for 6 since they started it..

He ended up 8 for 21 shooting Free throws tonight..
 
Last edited:
Then Rockets start their hack a Jordan at 2:52 UP 8 he misses both.
 
Last edited:
Here is my solution to the hack-a-whoever the NBA is going to.

More than 2 off the ball fouls against any one players in a half results in an automatic 2 pts. for that team.

Done.

Now, if DeAndre Jordan/Andre Drummond/Dwight Howard gets the ball in their hands.......all bets are off. But enough of this grabbing a guy while he's running down the court.....it's stupid.
 
Last edited:
Yeah my two thoughts on this:

1. Off the ball fouls like that should be penalized further. Like intentionally fouling someone that is away from the ball (not by a moving screen, or another incidental foul) gives that team 3 FT attempts instead of 2.

2. Players need to learn to make FTs. I'm for teams having to the ability to foul someone who shoots bad at the line.

All in all, I just rather the you have to foul that guy while he has the ball not merely when he is on the court. That's just lame.
 
Giving more free throws doesn't solve the actual problem (too many free throws being shot, slowing down the game). Giving an automatic two points is more against the spirit of the game (free points for not doing anything) than hacking. I would rather players be forced to hit free throws, but that doesn't seem to be the popular sentiment (no changes).

The most reasonable solution is to make those fouls count as something akin to a Flagrant 0. That is, if you foul a player without the ball intentionally, they get their free throws plus possession. Different from a Flagrant 1 or 2, these fouls will not lead to an automatic ejection at any point. This completely eliminates the value of hacking, since it doesn't actually give your team the ball back. Though, fouling a player WITH the ball would work as normal. That still gives teams incentive not to put a poor shooter on the floor in a tight game. Rather than incentivizing fouling to get the ball back, it incentivizes aggressive defenses that sag off poor foul shooters and bait the pass.
 
Id just rather give them another FT attempt, putting the pressure on the FT shooter more.

It's much like the crazy infield shifts in baseball. Players are finally starting to be like hey I should just hit it over there. Players will get better at FTs the more pressure is put on them to do so.
 
Giving more free throws doesn't solve the actual problem (too many free throws being shot, slowing down the game). Giving an automatic two points is more against the spirit of the game (free points for not doing anything) than hacking. I would rather players be forced to hit free throws, but that doesn't seem to be the popular sentiment (no changes).

The most reasonable solution is to make those fouls count as something akin to a Flagrant 0. That is, if you foul a player without the ball intentionally, they get their free throws plus possession. Different from a Flagrant 1 or 2, these fouls will not lead to an automatic ejection at any point. This completely eliminates the value of hacking, since it doesn't actually give your team the ball back. Though, fouling a player WITH the ball would work as normal. That still gives teams incentive not to put a poor shooter on the floor in a tight game. Rather than incentivizing fouling to get the ball back, it incentivizes aggressive defenses that sag off poor foul shooters and bait the pass.

I totally agree with this thinking. I would love to see this implemented.

They mentioned it during the Cavs Bulls game today when they were reviewing the clock before Lebron hit the buzzer beater, but I have said for years that when the refs are at the monitor you should not be able to huddle up at the bench and essentially get a free timeout. That to me is just as big as changing the free throw rules mentioned.
 
Intentional fouls (yes, even the end of game ones - not just hack-a-howard) should involve the team on offense choosing their own free throw shooter. That way, the best players stay in the game and the defense isn't rewarded for losing. Howard gets intentionally fouled (not really hard to figure out when it's intentional) and the Rockets staff get to choose from someone on the floor to shoot for him or they could just let him shoot. Whatever.
 
Id just rather give them another FT attempt, putting the pressure on the FT shooter more.

It's much like the crazy infield shifts in baseball. Players are finally starting to be like hey I should just hit it over there. Players will get better at FTs the more pressure is put on them to do so.

I'm not sure that's true. Howard and Jordan are both on good teams and both have been hacked in important games. Both are still poor foul shooters. These guys have also been in the league for more than 7 years. If it was as simple as putting pressure on them to learn, they would have done so already.

In fact, I'm not sure that infield shift example works either. I don't think there is much evidence to support the idea that batters can actually control where the ball goes. They can make better or worse contact, sure, but they aren't placing the ball like a tennis player.
 
Intentional fouls (yes, even the end of game ones - not just hack-a-howard) should involve the team on offense choosing their own free throw shooter. That way, the best players stay in the game and the defense isn't rewarded for losing. Howard gets intentionally fouled (not really hard to figure out when it's intentional) and the Rockets staff get to choose from someone on the floor to shoot for him or they could just let him shoot. Whatever.

As long as intentional fouls can only be called away from the ball, I would be fine with this idea. This stops true hacking (fouling a poor shooter who isn't in the play), but still forces the offense to account for passing to a poor shooter (on ball fouls not being considered intentional). If you include on-ball fouls, I think it adds too much subjectivity and could lead to new forms of flopping.
 
Back
Top