It's the first quarter and the Spurs are fouling Shaq. Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson have no problem with it and call it good coaching. JVG said he does not understand why people want to legislate against bad skill.
BTW, JVG and Mark Jackson are by far the best pair in all of sports right now. Insightful and hilarious. I hope neither gets a coaching job next season because they are the standard by which all analysts should be measured.
Back to the Hack-a-Shaq. I agree with JVG: if it is legal to foul a player intentionally throughout the game, why is not legal in the last 2:00? I don't understand it. Of course, I don't understand why NBA teams get to advance the ball to half court by virtue of calling a timeout. I hate thse fake rules.
My problem with the Hack-a-Shaq is this: in the NCAA Tournament, Kentucky fouled one of Marquette's players. The nest time, the Marquette player took off running. A Kentucky player was chasing the designated Marquette player all over the court and fouled him 90-feet from the ball. This is legal.
However, if the player had been shooting a lay-up, and the Kentucky player did not make an honest play on the ball, the officials would have called an "Intentional Foul" and given Marquette the ball after the FTs. So, fouling a shooter but not getting the ball is intentional, but chasing a player all over the court and grabbing him 90-feet from the basketball is not an intentional foul. This, I have a hard time understanding.
I have no problem with the Hack-a-Shaq if it is a basketball play. But, tackling someone 90-feet from the basketball is an intentional foul. There is no play on the ball. I don't know how anything could be more intentional. I just thought the end of the Marquette game was a mockery of basketball as two 6'9 guys chased each other around the court trying to foul and avoid being fouled. It was ridiculous. Same for the Hack-a-Shaq: if it's not part of the play, it's an intentional foul, whether it is smart or not. That's not legislating against bad skill, that's calling it what it is.
Comments
About Me
- Brian McCormick
- I am a basketball coach, trainer, author and entrepreneur. My goal is to improve the way that we train and coach youth basketball players. To subscribe to my Player Development Newsletter, email hard2guard [@] yahoo.com with "Subscribe" in the subject line.
- 180 Shooter
- The Cross Over Movement
- High Five Hoop School
- Other Writing
- Draft Express
- The Hoop Doctors
- Sac Town Royalty
- On the Green Comic
- Jump USA
- Hoops Addict
- NCAA Hoops
- Knicker Blogger
- Women's Hoops Blog
- Recruiting Wars
- Common Sense Dancing
- Gilbertology
- Player Development Blog
- Girl's Basketball Recruit
- Davis Hoops
- Lindell's Gospel
- Lone Star Basketball
- Nike Air Shoes
6 comments:
It's funny, I've actually been debating about the Hack-A-Shaq method myself with some friends for the past few days..great points you wrote, totally agree with you.
The fault lies not with the rule, but with Shaq. This would never ever ever happen if Shaq made his free throws on a consistent basis.
It's not basketball, I agree, but that's because Shaq doesn't have the basketball skill of making free throws.
The problem with your reasoning is that if you call grabbing Shaq an intentional foul, then what do you call setting a pick away from the ball, or holding to keep someone from getting around a screen?
Intentional fouls are fouls to stop the clock. If you attempt to foul before the ball is in play, that is when you draw 2 shots and possession.
Stop making excuses for Shaq. He should be better at free throw shooting.
Setting a pick is a legal play. I don't see a correlation. Defending a screen is a basketball play. I don't see a correlation.
Chasing a player and grabbing him 70-80 feet from the basketball is not a basketball play. It's not about defending Shaq. read my archives. It's about limiting the game from becoming a mockery.
I'm all for "professional" fouls. However, these fouls are part of the play, not a side game of tag.
From the NBA Rules:
Section IV--Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
PENALTY: (1) Two free throws shall be attempted and the ball awarded to the offended team on either side of the court at the free throw line extended.
Unnecessary contact. I agree with the above comment completely - one is in the act of attempting to make a legal play. The other is not. What's sad is that there are already rules (see above) on the book to deal with this. A shame the NBA and the officials will not enforce them. Even more interesting, you'd think the league would come out and simply say "our officials have been misapplying the rule, but from here on out this is how it will be enforced." It doesn't even require a rule change.
Thanks. Great point. I agree.
Post a Comment