van gundy

[TouchdownJesus]

I just wish I could talk to announcers sometimes. I like van Gundy, but he just said he thinks you should be able to "hack-a-shaq" inside 2 minutes of game.

Doesn't he realize the rule has nothing to do with "hack-a-shaq"....it is to prevent teams who are trailing and need to foul to stop the clock, from picking the worst foul shooter every time.

I mean, what a horrible rule it would be not to have it in place...

 

[kegray1]

WHAT IS DANTONI DOING????

Rest Shaq late the quarter when you are in the bonus then have him start the quarter.

Instead he uses him late in the quarter and rest him to start the 2nd.

They dont pull the hack-a-Shaq when they are not in the bonus.

 

[ELVIS]

problem is that the fouls could easily be called intentional. it is bs. guys just running up and grabbing shaq for no reason at all. shaq sux these days anyway - they should have never traded 4 him. he is slow, and he cannot defend.

agreed, dantoni is a f'n tool. nash is probably a worse defender than kidd, but he always gets parker. why not put nash on bowen ?

barbosa or bell should be on parker because either could do a better job than nash.

jeff gundy is a f'n tool.......

 

[BUCSnotYUCKS]

technically, the fouls should be called intentional.

if you foul a guy like that typically it's intentional cuz you're not going for the ball.

i think being able to do it is bush league

 

[TouchdownJesus]

I completely disagree...

I'm pretty sure there are no "intentional fouls" in the NBA. Only flagrant. That's the way it should be in college as well.

Are you saying that if you ACT like you are trying to get position with Shaq and ACCIDENTILY foul him, then that's ok, but if you do it on purpose with no intent to hurt him, then that is bush league????

Give me a break.

Somehow its ok to foul a guy on purpose as long as you "go for the ball"...

If you change the rule to prevent "hack-a-shaq", then you are, in essence, changing the entire rule for fouls that are away from the ball.

You could say that fouls away from the ball, the team gets to choose who shoots FT's, but it would have to be across the board.

I think the rule is fine, and the solution is simple. Either learn to shoot FT's or get out of the game.

 

[kegray1]

I think it is bush league tactics. I agree team should get to choose the shooter.

It is similar to what Sean Avery did in the NHL playoffs by faceguarding the goalie. Not against the rules, but was VERY WEAK move and a basic unwritten rule that you dont do it.

NBA should alter this rule a bit. It is kind of boring to watch as well.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Its kind of like both UNC and NCSU back in the early 80's....

4 Corners was kind of crappy...but it wasn't Dean Smith's fault. It was a bad rule to not have a shot clock.

Fouling and letting teams shoot 1-and-1 was not Valvano's fault. It was a bad rule and that's why now, its 2-shots after 10th foul.

I think they have a good rule in place. If not, perhaps someone can come up with something. Until then, its not "bush league", its simply good strategy to try and win games. You should actually blame teams for not using it before you blame a great coach like "pop" for using it. Its not his fault that Shaq can't shoot FT's, just like its not his fault that Shaq elbowing the crap out of a guy and dunking it isn't Shaq's fault that he gets 2 points for an easy dunk...

 

[BUCSnotYUCKS]

You act like Shaq doesn't try to shot FT's better.

I think it's 100% bush league.

It's not like they're getting intentional fouls to rack up their team fouls. In my opinion, it doesn't really even have anything to do with who they're fouling. It's just bush league tactics. It's not freaking basketball.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Down by 5 with 1:20 to go. A team fouls on purpose to send someone to the line, instead of playing defense.

Honestly, that's not "freaking basketball" either. But somehow that's accepted and hack-a-shaq is not. You are either allowed to foul or you aren't.

 

[BUCSnotYUCKS]

There's a difference. In those sense, you are supposed to be going for the ball, BY RULE.

In my opinion, the rules should be stated like this:

When fouling an opponent, if the opposing team choses to foul intentionally while their opponent specific player doesn't have the ball, a team shall chose to shoot free throws, or take the ball on the side.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

BUCS....

I do understand what you are saying. I also know that in a way, it really is kind of a "cheap" way to play.

What I'm saying is that I don't know how you make the rule without completely tarnishing the game...

Hack-A-Shaq would still exist with your rule. The only difference would be that, instead of teams grabbing him, they would play very physical defense and "accidentily" foul him.

Remember way back, when ncaa had the 1-and-1 for every foul but an intentional foul was 2-shots? What a joke. If you are down 1 with 5 seconds left and don't have the ball....its pretty obvious its intentional. But if you act like its an accident....

I've preached for years that you can't prove intent when it comes to sports and that's why you need certain rules, including the anti-hackashaq inside 2 minutes.

I don't completely agree with hack-a-shaq, except that I agree the best rules are in place and you have every right to take advantage of those rules.

 

[BUCSnotYUCKS]

To me, it's like calling a TO just seconds before the kicker kicks the ball, and almost everytime the kicker kicks the ball already.

Twisting and bending rules just because you can is bush league when it comes to the quality and integrity of the game.

 

[TouchdownJesus]

Well, there is one difference. As far as the field goal rule goes, all they have to do is change the rules and not let anyone call timeout who isn't in the game.

I hate to see coaches calling those timeouts like that, but I don't blame them, I blame the rules.

How about when a guy pump fakes, gets the guy up in the air, then shoots only to draw a foul? I guess that's bush league too?? (And with that example, I'm referring to going straight up with the shot, not leaning into it)...