Quotes from the Houston Rockets forums- "avoid this jazz team at all cost, we just can't beat them"
- Thread starter JazzAvenues
- Start date
So now we are just going to have players commit hard, obvious fouls while "going for the ball" instead to stop the clock. Everyone will know they are intentional but can the refs call them that way? No. Stupid rule. Intentional fouls are part of the game.
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Saying a player shouldn't want FTs is the most absurd basketball take I have ever heard.
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
A more measured approach would be to not have continuation outside the 3pt line.
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
JimLes
Well-Known Member
It's not saying a player should not want FTs, it's saying that the situation itself is certainly not what was intended when free throws were introduced as a concept. Players play within the rules, it's up to the league and the refs to actually interpret and enforce. You're making straw man arguments here and ignoring my actual points.
It's not about whether players want free throws, it's about whether you think they should want them. Rather, whether free throws should function that way. Is it a compensation or reward. I believe they should be compensation. You believe they should be a reward. I think that's stupid.
How can you tell that though? OK it's easy if you're shooting a jumpshot, you're bringing the ball up above your head and you're shooting - ok, that's easy to see he was actually shooting.
But most of the time Harden isn't doing that. He's driving to the hole, holding the ball in front of him and looking like he's going up for a layup, and gets fouled across the arm. According to you, your question is "Was he shooting at the time"? I would say "Yes he was, he was going up for a layup".
How could you deny him the free throw in that case?
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Why not take a simple concept from tort law, that of last clear chance? Look at this video.
https://www.nba.com/video/games/rockets/2015/12/31/0021500485-gsw-hou-play4.nba/
Thompson fakes, Jones jumps and was obviously going to sail over him, allowing Thompson to shoot freely after. Instead, Thompson does not wait for Jones to land, but throws himself under Jones, initiating the contact, and then shooting. Under the last clear chance doctrine, this would be an offensive foul because Thompson had the chance to avoid contact but he didn't. The collision was his fault, not Jones'.
https://www.nba.com/video/games/rockets/2015/12/31/0021500485-gsw-hou-play4.nba/
Thompson fakes, Jones jumps and was obviously going to sail over him, allowing Thompson to shoot freely after. Instead, Thompson does not wait for Jones to land, but throws himself under Jones, initiating the contact, and then shooting. Under the last clear chance doctrine, this would be an offensive foul because Thompson had the chance to avoid contact but he didn't. The collision was his fault, not Jones'.
Yeah, that's wrong. Free throws are a tool. If you are quicker, more athletic, stronger, etc; you can force defenders into advantageous positions to draw fouls to get easy points. I dont care what it was invented for in the 40's, it's what it is now.
Harden is an amazing shooter and extremely quick. He forces defenders to play him tight and he seduces them by showing the ball in both his handle and gather for layups. He takes advantage of his skills to get defenders to reach and he makes them pay. I think refs need to really crack down on offensive players jumping into defenders to draw fouls, especially off pump fakes, but a lot of the stuff Harden does is legitimate foul drawing. Just because he has an elite skill I dont think the rules should punish him. If a player is dribbling off a pick and wants to pull up to shoot, but the defender is holding him or reaching into his shooting pocket, then he should be able to draw that foul. George Hill and Gordon Hayward also both do this.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Was the in the air? Then he was in the motion of shooting a layup? He was not in the air? Then he wasn't. Simple as that. Just like you shouldn't give FTs to a guy who was about to pull up for a three after taking another step, you shouldn't give FTs to a guy about to attempt a layup after taking another step.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Because we don't have rules like goaltending or even the paint itself? Those were not brought in to punish someone's elite skill?
That is a legitimate foul drawn. He pump fakes and gets the defender in the air. His shot following is a natural motion towards the goal to get the bucket. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Completely different.
If goaltending was legal, no one would ever score besides on dunks.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Are you trying to wind me up or something? He obviously throws himself into the defender. He could have easily waited for Jones to land and made an uncontested layup.
You don't necessarily need to be in the air to make a layup IMO. When I was playing I knew a guy who's a sharp shooter, he literally gets all this 'jump shot' in, but his feet never left the ground.
I don't think that's a good criteria to use at all.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
Do you want more example of the NBA closing loopholes players were exploiting? Because there's plenty. Everything from defensive 3 in the key, to a clock now not resetting if the ball hits the backboard, to no handchecking, to whatever else you want.
Yeah, your opinion on these matters is invalid. No point in arguing with you if you think what Thompson did is not a reasonable NBA play.
Yes, those rules were all made to make the NBA a faster and more free flowing game.
Like I said, they need to look at how they are calling these things, but any large sweeping rule change would be a mistake.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
That's not why changes were made. Changes were and are made in order to make the game better for us. To give fans a better product we'd enjoy watching. Not all are intended to speed the game up or make it more fast flowing. Some do the opposite, like the video review which despite some hiccups I think has been so good. I don't care if it took me 3 minutes to find out Rudy's putback against the Kings counted, deflating some of my energy in celebrating. It makes for a better product. I wouldn't want the Jazz or the Kings to lose on a blown last second call when a couple of minutes of looking at the tape can easily fix that.
And we can disagree on this, but I think the swingman obsession the NBA has had over the past 20 years makes for a worse product. The desire to manufacture another Michael Jordan has led to all sorts of rule changes that have led us to where we are now. We're living in an age of slickly manufactured NBA stars, nearly all of whom are perimeter players with really high usage. Nearly all of them make their living from driving into the lane where the rules have increasingly made it impossible for defenders to stop them. You may argue the product is better than it used to be, but the ratings say otherwise. They've been steadily dropping for 20 years, and you can hardly blame all of that on streaming. People just don't watch basketball as much as they used to, at least in North America. Of course, NBA has managed to offset any financial losses by expanding into the Third World, as well as creating the NBA brand that isn't really all that dependent on actual basketball. More than anything else, they're selling the NBA as a culture now. Kids are buying jerseys but not actually watching games. Of course, I don't have to tell you whose jerseys they're buying. Perimeter players who handle the ball a lot. Draymond Green is 4th on his on team in sales, even though we found out last June that he was much higher than fourth in importance. Still, for all the money, you can't ignore the fact that people who used to watch NBA 25 years go aren't watching it as much now. There's got to be a reason.
That actually seems like an interesting idea.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Are you saying all countries outside of the USA are 'Third World' countries?
I don't think that's right. The NBA also expanded into Europe, Australia, NZ, etc, I don't think you can say those countries are 'Third World'.
Also I'd much rather use the word 'developing countries' than 'Third World'. We all live in the same world, it's not like people in poorer countries live in another world.