Hack away intentional fouls
League needs to tread carefully on any rule changes
MIAMI — The enduring portrait of foul-line failure for the Heat this past season was Hassan Whiteside’s 4 of 16 on the final Saturday of the regular season in a 107-104 loss to the Toronto Raptors, a loss that ultimately cost the Heat a playoff berth.
It wasn’t typical hack-a-[fill in name here of poor foul shooter], but rather forcing a player with a 10-stitch gash in his right hand to shoot free throws when he otherwise might have dunked. Just about all those fouls were on-the-ball plays.
But now, with deer-inthe-headlights Los Angeles Clippers center DeAndre Jordan and others, including Houston Rockets center Dwight Howard and Rockets forward Josh Smith, re-opening the debate about whether to award a free throw to any teammate with the fouled team retaining possession to avoid those rating-skilling intentional-foul moments in Spurs-Clippers, consider the greater consequences:
Any rule written regarding off-the-ball fouls while in the penalty other than in a game’s final two minutes (when there already is such a rule), would have to be for all off-the-ball fouls.
So what happens when a defender fights aggressively through a screen off the ball with the opposition in the bonus outside of the final two minutes? Under such a revised rule, that would give the opposing team a free throw (or maybe two, depending how a new rule is written) and possession, on a play that currently would be judged a common foul. That, in turn, could have referees more likely to swallow whistles, rather than create potential three- or fourpoint possessions for what currently is a relatively innocuous play.
And the last thing the game needs, with so many replay reviews as it is, is forcing referees to determine whether such a foul was intentional, because you can bet that the Gregg Popovichs of the world will find a way to try to make intentional fouls look unintentional.
Yes, hack-a-[anyone] hurts the game’s cosmetics. But change the rule and you could wind up changing the game with unintended consequences.
Among suggestions has been allowing the fouled team (the one with Jordan, Howard or Smith, in this example) to decline the free throws and instead inbound, perhaps with a fresh shot clock, just as an NFL team can decline a penalty. The result would be players adding to their six-foul limit while not providing the desired consequence of the forced free throws.
However, if the concept of declining free throws is introduced, then what about a team down three in the final seconds? Would they then also be able to decline those free throws and instead opt to inbound for a 3-point attempt before there can be another foul? Tinker with those moments and you’re eliminating a long-accepted part of basketball strategy. For that matter, if declining free throw were to become an NBA option, teams up late in games could also decline free throws in favor of possession.
In discussing the issue with Associated Press sports editors recently, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said, “I watch it and I think, ’Oh my god, I feel people changing the channels.’ So we’re also an entertainment property that’s competing against a lot of other options that people have for their discretionary time.’’
Yet, at some point, the game also has to be about the game, about those able to meet the qualifications of playing the game, in this case making free throws.
The NBA isn’t lowering the rim to make it easier to dunk or adding trampolines (I have seen SlamBall and it certainly is not the future).
As Popovich has said of hack-a-…, “Does it look bad? Does it look ugly? It looks awful.”
If Silver insists his competition committee does something, add in the NFL-style option of declining a penalty (in this case the free throws) and play on. The last thing the league needs is more free throws. Instead treat it almost as a soccer-style “play on” rule, by bringing the ball to side-court, inbounding, and eventually eliminating the tactic as a viable option.