I'm now watching Deandre Jordan get hacked and have to take free throws. Why is this not an intentional foul? To me, an intentional foul is a non-basketball play, or a foul that isn't a play on the ball. Grabbing a player away from the ball is obviously intentional, why isn't it ruled as an intentional foul? Besides, it's probably the best way to make a game incredibly boring to watch.
I don't understand the question. The rule was put into place that you're allowed to do this until the 2:00 minute mark I believe. It's a sound strategy and these big men should learn some damn fundamentals if they want it to stop.
^ As long as their athleticism gets them a pass, they won't. They don't think they have to and take the easy way out by opting out of the class. DeAndre Jordan doesn't strike me as someone who'd be able to answer a single question on Are You Smarter Than A 5th Grader. You would think they'd want to be in the game when it mattered and not have the pressure of at trying to at least hit the rim (much less 1/2 FTs) when they're being hacked. This goes out to you too Mr. Dwight Coward.
The question is: It is clearly an intentional action that is also not a play on the ball. I don't understand why it is legal when it has absolutely no play on the ball.
Because it's been made a rule. You're talking about two different rules and wondering why one doesn't affect the other?
I like the rule as is, it lets teams use strategy. You only have 6 fouls for each player as well, so it's not like it can be done unlimitedly. Off the ball fouls happen, sometimes inadvertently, and if refs have to start making those judgement calls I'd start to worry. Teams need to be able to do things like this to get back into games at times, I don't think they should be penalized for it. And yes, if Jordan wasn't shooting 41% from the line it wouldn't happen. Get in the gym and learn how to make a FT and stop practicing dunks.
You're right. But I could counter with this: you're a professional basketball team, learn how to play without stopping the game with an unnecessary off-the-ball foul. Which seems more un-basketball to you? A poorly co-ordinated 7-footer, or a foul completely away from the play, that has no affect on the ball?
I don't agree with your stance. These players are professional athletes who are paid millions and millions of dollars. If they can't make a free throw, it's a joke and deserves to be exploited. In football is it wrong to call a timeout to ice a kicker on a FG? That has nothing to do with football. It's called gamesmanship. It's finding wrinkles in the game to find an advantage. If you want it to end, make the free throws. Learn fundamentals.
A team does what it can to win a game. They find weaknesses that they can exploit. A defender can't guard the scorer, team too slow to catch up on the fast break, defense can't guard the 3 point shot, etc. A poor freethrow shooter is a weakness, if he learns how to make them then there's no need to worry about the hack-a-player. They are professionals, hire a shooting coach, fix your form, take 200 freethrows a day. It's not hard.
I agree about exploiting weaknesses. Those are all exploits within plays on the ball though. And fouling Deandre if he catches the ball, I think that is totally legit. But I think fouling away from the ball should be deemed an intentional foul, and be rewarded with a free throw and the ball, like a technical foul. You two are right, he should learn to shoot free throws. But I don't understand how you think that fouling away from the ball, completely away from the play, is a legit strategy that should be allowed as a regular foul.
Because it encourages development and fundamentals. If Jordan learns how to shoot the strategy stops. Shaq was the first person to have this strategy used against him and it was frustrating. Not because of Popovich but because Shaq couldn't make free throws. Learn how to do something children are taught and maybe the strategy stops.
I get what the OP is asking. I think he's asking why is it an arbitrary rule where at one instance an intentional foul is treated has a common foul and another instance its treated differently.
It's a good question and I don't understand the interpretation of the rule.............. but I hate the Clippers so I'm not complaining. LOL
I agree with Real on here the problem is that players can't shoot free throws. I also understand the OP's question too. TO answer why it isn't an intentional foul it is because the "intentional foul" rule was put into play to protect players taking a shot and getting hurt like Kurt getting clothes-lined in a game, or DFish with the super elbow, or Bowen with the Karate Kick defense. It is an over aggressive act against the offensive player. What you (OP) are asking about is something that is totally different. The defense is exploiting the weakness of the offense. Lets remember it is not without risk for the defense because it puts the offense in the "bonus" fairly quickly so under 2-minutes every foul is a shooting foul. It simply requires coaches to coach. How big a play is it to have to take Shaq out for 2 min of a big game? Or, as we seen on our team, having to remove Dwight and then not getting the stops or the timeout to put him back in?If I was a coach I'd do the same thing. Shaq once said, "I'll make em when I have to" and a few times he did just that and hack-a-shaq stopped in that game. Make the free throws and they stop hacking you.
Would it be any different if the defending player held the player's jersey in a manner that "seemed" like a "basketball play"? Rather than wasting time to determine whether it's "intentional" or not, a foul is a foul until you get under the 2:00 mark of the 4th quarter. Like Real said, it's not an indefinite thing when players can foul out. You're given FREE THROWS to the opposing team. Arguably the easiest points the other team can get outside a dunk/wide open layup. If you can't make a shot without anyone defending you, that's pathetic. It's part of the game.
I don't think it's "nice" to focus on a player's weaknesses. Think how that must make them feel. Sure they make a lot of money but they spend a lot of money too.
