Adam Silver on Hack-a-Who: Make some changes this SUMMER

[imnew09]

NBA commissioner Adam Silver, a little more than three months after saying that rules regarding the "hack-a-player" strategy were unlikely to change, has changed his mind.

"I'm increasingly of the view that we will be looking to make some sort of change in that rule this summer," Silver told USA Today Sports. "Even for those who had not wanted to make the change, we're being forced to that position just based on these sophisticated coaches understandably using every tactic available to them. It's just not the way we want to see the game played."

Finally! I understand that players getting millions should be able to make their freethrows, but still, I'm fken tired of seeing brickfest day/in day out.

Source (http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/14719848/adam-silver-says-changes-needed-hack-player-rule)

[Dr Seuss]

in b4 Silver announces every team/player will get a trophy at the end of the season just for participating.

[Rake2204]

I believe a change is the right move here. The process of purposely fouling a player away from the ball truly has very little to do with the intent of the game itself. I mean, it's technically legal right now, so I can't fault teams for doing as they please, but it's a play that makes little sense for allowing in its current format. It's almost like exploiting a glitch in NBA 2K.

I don't believe the game stands to lose much by curtailing Hack-a-Shaq. Poor free throw shooters will still be a detriment in many situations. For instance, entering the ball into the post to Andre Drummond late in a game is still potentially problematic if teams commit a foul while trying to make a basketball play.

As for what it teaches youths... I was never really a fan of that angle. People who play basketball inherently love to score (with few exceptions). Players want to make all the free throws possible as it is because, well, more points and glory.

Good and bad free throw shooters have existed forever. But if the Hack-a-Shaq somehow trickled its way down to amateur ball, I think that'd be more horrifying and awful than anything involving a bad free throw shooter (thankfully, most non-NBA leagues consider that type of play to be an intentional foul punishable by two free throws and possession).

That said, the one thing I think could end the existence of this rule even quicker: if teams actually take a flyer on the random notion out there suggesting that hacking Steph Curry during one of his hot runs may help cool momentum, even if he hits 91 percent.

[bdreason]

How do you change the rule though? How do you tell when a foul is definitely intentional? How about the guys who pretend to jump over the back to draw fouls? How do you separate the real fouls from the intentional foul?

And if every off-ball foul is going to be FT's and the ball, then in the long run, you're actually just going to be creating more FT shooting per game. So in order to stop a handful of guys from getting fouled on purpose, the NBA is going to increase the average number of FT's in every game?

[zeerghit]

they better make a rule if u cant shoot 50% freethrows u going to NBDL with 80% paycut

[Rake2204]

How do you change the rule though? How do you tell when a foul is definitely intentional? How about the guys who pretend to jump over the back to draw fouls? How do you separate the real fouls from the intentional foul?

And if every off-ball foul is going to be FT's and the ball, then in the long run, you're actually just going to be creating more FT shooting per game. So in order to stop a handful of guys from getting fouled on purpose, the NBA is going to increase the average number of FT's in every game?Well, like deeming a foul flagrant or not, or in the act of shooting or on the floor, or whether someone's acted in a manner deserving of a technical foul, it'd largely be left up to the discretion of the officials.

And to be honest, committing the obvious atypical half court hugs away from the ball isn't the toughest call to interpret. Granted, there's some ways of masking such a play, but there's also ways of masking standard fouls as well, so I'm unsure if the idea that some people still might be able to sneak in an intentional away-from-the-play foul here or there is reason enough to not even try to curb it.

Regarding your second paragraph, I must respectfully disagree with your platform. Andre Drummond shot 36 free throws against the Houston Rockets without any kind of Hack-a-Shaq prevention. The outcome, if the league changes the rule to anything that even vaguely resembles what the D-League currently has in place, would be the likely prevention of situations like that from ever occurring.

Here's the D-League's current definition:


The away-from-the-play foul rule (also known as the rule that attempts to combat “Hack-a-Shaq”): An away-from-the-play foul is defined as any illegal contact by the defense which occurs either deliberately away from the immediate area of offensive action, prior to the ball being released on a throw-in, or both. If an away-from-the-play foul is committed at any point in the game, personal and team fouls will be assessed and one free throw attempt will be awarded to any player in the game at the time the personal foul was committed.

So, to head back to the case of Drummond, if the Rockets were silly enough to foul him intentionally away from the ball on a play that was easily recognizable as being deliberate (say, a K.J. McDaniels hug), Reggie Jackson, an 84 percent free throw shooter, would attempt one free throw and the Pistons would retain possession. If they continued fouling, they'd just be handing points and possession to Detroit in an infinite loop.

Long story short: the glitch that comes with benefiting from purposeful rule breaking would be largely tied up.

I am unsure how such an implementation would result in more free throws? It is your belief that teams would try the strategy even harder? Or were you mistaking the rule being that any and all away-from-the-ball fouls would result in a free throw, regardless of intent?

Some numbers: There were 162 instances of Hack-a-Shaq in 2014-15. We're closing in on 300 already this year before we've even hit the All-Star break. And as of late January, 27 different players have been Hack-a-Shaq'd this season.

[kshutts1]

I believe a change is the right move here. The process of purposely fouling a player away from the ball truly has very little to do with the intent of the game itself. I mean, it's technically legal right now, so I can't fault teams for doing as they please, but it's a play that makes little sense for allowing in its current format. It's almost like exploiting a glitch in NBA 2K.
Sorry to delete the rest of your awesome post, but I wanted to focus on this point..

It's not technically legal. At all. In fact, it's literally the definition of a Flagrant foul. The only thing missing from the definition of "Flagrant" is it actually stating that Hack-a-Shaq is illegal.

But consider... is it a basketball play? No. Is there a play on the ball? No. Is it gratuitous contact? Yes. Is it an attempt to harm another? No (That's what keeps it a F1 instead of F2, hence the inclusion here).

You're normally spot-on with your posts, but this one time, this one technicality... I gotta argue with that. It's not at all legal. It's just allowed. Like driving 5-9 mpg over the limit.

[bdreason]

I am unsure how such an implementation would result in more free throws? It is your belief that teams would try the strategy even harder? Or were you mistaking the rule being that any and all away-from-the-ball fouls would result in a free throw, regardless of intent?




I'm saying it's impossible to accurately determine intent for every off-ball foul that happens every game. The NBA is in the business of taking judgement calls out of the refs hands, not giving them a dozen more each game.

So, if they do indeed make every off-ball foul a technical, since it's impossible to determine otherwise, then you would end up with more FT shooting every game, not less.

[avonbarksdale]

so unfair

you are rewarding players for being bad

whats next, not enough people are shooting threes at a high clip so the line will be moved closer?

[kshutts1]

so unfair

you are rewarding players for being bad

whats next, not enough people are shooting threes at a high clip so the line will be moved closer?
Rather than look at it as "rewarding players for being bad" look at it as... the team against whom a foul is committed should NOT have to pay for it.

Not only is intentionally fouling illegal, and just not called, but it flies in the face of reason and logic in regards to the spirit of the game.

[ZenMaster]

I'm saying it's impossible to accurately determine intent for every off-ball foul that happens every game. The NBA is in the business of taking judgement calls out of the refs hands, not giving them a dozen more each game.

So, if they do indeed make every off-ball foul a technical, since it's impossible to determine otherwise, then you would end up with more FT shooting every game, not less.

I can guarantee you that every foul off the ball won't be determined an off-ball technical, it is indeed possible to determine it otherwise. Every time you watch the US play FIBA ball, they play with the rules we are discussing in this thread and it works just fine.

And in basketball like so many other sports, the refs will have to determine if a player is doing something with intent or not, there is no way around that.

[pastis]

How do you change the rule though? How do you tell when a foul is definitely intentional? How about the guys who pretend to jump over the back to draw fouls? How do you separate the real fouls from the intentional foul?

And if every off-ball foul is going to be FT's and the ball, then in the long run, you're actually just going to be creating more FT shooting per game. So in order to stop a handful of guys from getting fouled on purpose, the NBA is going to increase the average number of FT's in every game?

thats exactly my question... i mean its obvious that fouling guys like DJ at the half court is intentional. but what about inside the 3-point-line? or just waiting that a DJ gets the ball inside the paint and then fouling.
cant really imagine how this will work out

[Levity]

how do they prevent this (my post from a similar thread)

"im more curious about what you guys think about how teams are manipulating the rule under 2 mins to go.

If team A gets to the free throw line with under 2 mins left, with team B having a bad FT shooter lined up for a rebound, Team A purposely fouls that Team B player when "fighting for rebounding position" sending that bad FT shooter from Team B to the line.

ive seen that done a few times as recently as last month."

i can see teams still implementing the
hack-a-shitty FT shooter" in that way. because it will almost be impossible to say a foul was "intentional" when fighting for position at the FT line, once players develop the perfect way on how to do it. and you know coaches that use that strategy will preach that in practice

[ZenMaster]

thats exactly my question... i mean its obvious that fouling guys like DJ at the half court is intentional. but what about inside the 3-point-line? or just waiting that a DJ gets the ball inside the paint and then fouling.
cant really imagine how this will work out

Even if that happens the rule has still made the game better:

1) If you want to foul a guy like DJ closer to the basket, then he must be doing a basketball related play, like receiving the ball or set a screen. Either way more time will have run off the clock and thus the game length is not enhanced.

2) If you want to foul "intentionally" when a player receives the ball, like DJ, then you must have a player guarding him who can also box out and play off the ball defense, so you can't just sub a guard in who waits at half court to hug someone, the reason you have to do this is that the team can chose not to pass DJ the ball.

[pastis]

Even if that happens the rule has still made the game better:

1) If you want to foul a guy like DJ closer to the basket, then he must be doing a basketball related play, like receiving the ball or set a screen. Either way more time will have run off the clock and thus the game length is not enhanced.

2) If you want to foul "intentionally" when a player receives the ball, like DJ, then you must have a player guarding him who can also box out and play off the ball defense, so you can't just sub a guard in who waits at half court to hug someone, the reason you have to do this is that the team can chose not to pass DJ the ball.

yea. but how do you evaluate what a basketball related play is or not? this must be decided in tenth of a second?

[imnew09]

I'm saying it's impossible to accurately determine intent for every off-ball foul that happens every game. The NBA is in the business of taking judgement calls out of the refs hands, not giving them a dozen more each game.

So, if they do indeed make every off-ball foul a technical, since it's impossible to determine otherwise, then you would end up with more FT shooting every game, not less.

that's a great point. It's hard to judge the intentional foul against fouling unintentionally. What happens if they unintentionally fouled player x then have player y shoots the ft + gain possession.

[Rake2204]

Sorry to delete the rest of your awesome post, but I wanted to focus on this point..

It's not technically legal. At all. In fact, it's literally the definition of a Flagrant foul. The only thing missing from the definition of "Flagrant" is it actually stating that Hack-a-Shaq is illegal.

But consider... is it a basketball play? No. Is there a play on the ball? No. Is it gratuitous contact? Yes. Is it an attempt to harm another? No (That's what keeps it a F1 instead of F2, hence the inclusion here).

You're normally spot-on with your posts, but this one time, this one technicality... I gotta argue with that. It's not at all legal. It's just allowed. Like driving 5-9 mpg over the limit.Yeah, that's a good call. As I was typing that I told myself the same thing (i.e. "Well, it technically IS illegal"). But I was just trying to say that, for one reason or another, teams are currently able to use that strategy, so they do.


I'm saying it's impossible to accurately determine intent for every off-ball foul that happens every game. The NBA is in the business of taking judgement calls out of the refs hands, not giving them a dozen more each game.

So, if they do indeed make every off-ball foul a technical, since it's impossible to determine otherwise, then you would end up with more FT shooting every game, not less.Once again, the D-League's away-from-the-ball foul rule (aka the anti-Hack-a-Shaq) is only for those fouls deemed deliberate.

The primary goal will be to eliminate the obnoxious "I'm not even trying to mask the fact that I'm intentionally hugging this dude at half court" calls. I do not believe it's going to turn every foul as Stephen Curry runs off a screen into "But did he knowingly grab Curry's waist as he was curling around?"

99 percent of current foul calls would continue as normal. The only difference is there'd be a deterrent for the so-obvious-there's-absolutely-no-debate calls, like the K.J. McDaniels situation.

I was reading about how that ruling has worked out in D-League games. According to at least one writer, the jury may still be out because no one in the D-League has tried to employ Hack-a-Shaq this year (which may have not been something that really happened in D-League before the rule change either).

But on the other hand, teams haven't been firing a bazillion more free throws per game due to officials calling normal away from the play fouls as deliberate either.

[ZenMaster]

yea. but how do you evaluate what a basketball related play is or not? this must be decided in tenth of a second?

How do you mean exactly? The rule book clearly states what is a foul and what isn't.

If you foul someone when they are setting a screen, then it's a basketball related play, hugging someone away from the ball for no reason other than to foul him is not considered a true basketball play.
Now if someone fouls a player over and over while he's setting a screen the refs will see this and can act accordingly, and even if they don't then it is still better to have them foul on screens and what not instead of just hugging someone at mid-court for the reason I mentioned in my previous post, and I guarantee you that someone like Dwight Howard is not going to foul out of a game in order to send DJ to the line over and over again on purpose.

[ZenMaster]

For anyone interested, this is how FIBA goes about it in their rule book:


Art. 37 Unsportsmanlike foul
37.1. Definition
37.1.1. An unsportsmanlike foul is a player contact foul which, in the judgement of an
official is:
• Not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball within the spirit and intent of
the rules.
• Excessive, hard contact caused by a player in an effort to play the ball.
• Contact by the defensive player from behind or laterally on an opponent in an
attempt to stop the fast break and there is no defensive player between the
offensive player and the opponent’s basket.
• Contact by the defensive player on an opponent on the court during the last 2
minutes in the fourth period and in each extra period, when the ball is out-ofbounds
for a throw-in and still in the hands of the official or at the disposal of
the player taking the throw-in.

37.1.2. The official must interpret the unsportsmanlike fouls consistently throughout the
game and to judge only the action.
37.2. Penalty
37.2.1. An unsportsmanlike foul shall be charged against the offender.
37.2.2. Free throw(s) shall be awarded to the player who was fouled, followed by:
• A throw-in at the centre line extended, opposite the scorer’s table.
• A jump ball in the centre circle to begin the first period.
The number of free throws shall be awarded as follows:
• If the foul is committed on a player not in the act of shooting: 2 free throws.
• If the foul is committed on a player in the act of shooting: the goal, if made, shall
count and, in addition, 1 free throw.
• If the foul is committed on a player in the act of shooting and the goal is not
made, 2 or 3 free throws.
37.2.3. A player shall be disqualified for the remainder of the game when he is charged with
2 unsportsmanlike fouls.
37.2.4. If a player is disqualified under Art. 37.2.3, the unsportsmanlike foul shall be the only
foul to be penalised and no additional penalty for the disqualification shall be
administered.

[Rake2204]

How do you mean exactly? The rule book clearly states what is a foul and what isn't.

If you foul someone when they are setting a screen, then it's a basketball related play, hugging someone away from the ball for no reason other than to foul him is not considered a true basketball play.
Now if someone fouls a player over and over while he's setting a screen the refs will see this and can act accordingly, and even if they don't then it is still better to have them foul on screens and what not instead of just hugging someone at mid-court for the reason I mentioned in my previous post, and I guarantee you that someone like Dwight Howard is not going to foul out of a game in order to send DJ to the line over and over again on purpose.Well said. Many other leagues have enforced preventative measures against intentional away-from-the-ball calls for a lonnnnng time.

At least one anonymous source in today's USA Today article stated that the league's first step may be ridding of pieces of Hack-a-Shaq, like starting at outlawing the free throw line piggy back rides we've been seeing pop up lately (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pYZpnF5NlY) then branching outward.

In that vain, outlawing the super obvious backcourt bear hugs away from the ball would likely be a super easy start. Such calls wouldn't require much interpretation and it'd likely eliminate one of the worst basketball plays in the league. If a team's strategy even partially revolves around purposely breaking the rules... I'd consider that a possible call to action.

Maybe teams would find additional subversive ways to commit intentional fouls, but I don't find that possibility reason enough to not even try addressing the super obvious misdeeds that already exist.

[ZenMaster]

Well said. Many other leagues have enforced preventative measures against intentional away-from-the-ball calls for a lonnnnng time.

At least one anonymous source in today's USA Today article stated that the league's first step may be ridding of pieces of Hack-a-Shaq, like starting at outlawing the free throw line piggy back rides we've been seeing pop up lately (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pYZpnF5NlY) then branching outward.

In that vain, outlawing the super obvious backcourt bear hugs away from the ball would likely be a super easy start. Such calls wouldn't require much interpretation and it'd likely eliminate one of the worst basketball plays in the league. If a team's strategy even partially revolves around purposely breaking the rules... I'd consider that a possible call to action.

Maybe teams would find additional subversive ways to commit intentional fouls, but I don't find that possibility reason enough to not even try addressing the super obvious misdeeds that already exist.

I'm a bit surprised at the concern, that so many extra more fouls would now be called deliberate, I've never seen this to be an issue in European basketball, but common sense is applied in regards to what is and what isn't a play in the spirit of the rules.
Hadn't seen the piggyback before, but that is an intentional foul if I ever saw one. I'm actually a bit surprised that the refs wouldn't give him a flagrant or technical for it and let someone else discuss the technicalities.

[Adam Silver]

Starting next year, I will be presenting trophies to every team and players will each get participation plaques.

[Pushxx]

They...need...to...not...make...changes. It's ****ing BASKETBALL.

[Adam Silver]

They...need...to...not...make...changes. It's ****ing BASKETBALL.
I make changes every year. People get over it.

[ZenMaster]

They...need...to...not...make...changes. It's ****ing BASKETBALL.

It's the other way around.. Hugging someone at mid-court is not basketball..

[Adam Silver]

It's the other way around.. Hugging someone at mid-court is not basketball..
But maybe it should be...

[kshutts1]

Well said. Many other leagues have enforced preventative measures against intentional away-from-the-ball calls for a lonnnnng time.

At least one anonymous source in today's USA Today article stated that the league's first step may be ridding of pieces of Hack-a-Shaq, like starting at outlawing the free throw line piggy back rides we've been seeing pop up lately (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pYZpnF5NlY) then branching outward.

In that vain, outlawing the super obvious backcourt bear hugs away from the ball would likely be a super easy start. Such calls wouldn't require much interpretation and it'd likely eliminate one of the worst basketball plays in the league. If a team's strategy even partially revolves around purposely breaking the rules... I'd consider that a possible call to action.

Maybe teams would find additional subversive ways to commit intentional fouls, but I don't find that possibility reason enough to not even try addressing the super obvious misdeeds that already exist.
It is beginning!

http://www.nba.com/2016/news/02/07/intentional-fouling.ap/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpts

[Adam Silver]

It is beginning!

http://www.nba.com/2016/news/02/07/intentional-fouling.ap/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpts
As I have previously stated, this is just to make people think that I'm not helping LeBron. Don't worry though, I will continue to help him get to the Finals. It is up to him what he does then.