PDA

View Full Version : Up 3, :15 Seconds Left



airowe
03-05-2010, 08:34 AM
The other team is bringing the ball in from the opposite side of the floor. Do you foul?

I've seen both sides of the argument from intelligent basketball minds. I'm interested in yours.

miramar
03-05-2010, 08:45 AM
I saw the Mavericks do this against the Heat a few years back. The Heat made the first free throw, and deliberately missed the second, which went out of bounds to the Heat after a mad scramble. Someone got open in the corner, perhaps Rafer Alston, and he made a three to win the game. So it doesn't always work out.

lpd1982
03-05-2010, 08:45 AM
Case by case basis, rather than hard and fast rule.

How's their shooting?
Do they have more than one dagger shooter?
Are they fast?
How are your defenders?
Are the defenders in foul trouble?
How are they at the foul line?

I know, That's not what you were looking for. Sorry.

Indoor66
03-05-2010, 08:47 AM
The other team is bringing the ball in from the opposite side of the floor. Do you foul?

I've seen both sides of the argument from intelligent basketball minds. I'm interested in yours.

You never give the other team the opportunity to score on a dead clock. Play close defense, allow NO threes and let it play out. If you do foul (not on a 3), then you get the intentionally foul result. Make them use time.

CDu
03-05-2010, 08:52 AM
Case by case basis, rather than hard and fast rule.

How's their shooting?
Do they have more than one dagger shooter?
Are they fast?
How are your defenders?
Are the defenders in foul trouble?
How are they at the foul line?

I know, That's not what you were looking for. Sorry.

I agree, and I'll add to this:
Is the opposing team in the bonus (if not, then you obviously foul before the guy prepares to shoot to kill some clock and force another inbounds play)?
How are you at inbounding the ball?
How good are your free throw shooters?

Basically, the question is whether you're more comfortable defending one 3 point shot (maybe two with a long rebound) or more comfortable extending the game at the free throw line but reducing the likelihood that they can make up the difference. And as you said, that's dependent on the situation, and thus the answer isn't necessarily the same for every game.

left_hook_lacey
03-05-2010, 08:53 AM
Case by case basis, rather than hard and fast rule.

How's their shooting?
Do they have more than one dagger shooter?
Are they fast?
How are your defenders?
Are the defenders in foul trouble?
How are they at the foul line?

I know, That's not what you were looking for. Sorry.

I agree. I've always leaned towards fouling in that situation, but you can't have a cut and dry protocol with the decision. Their has to be some flexibility.

Two main points I would ask myself in addition to those listed would be.....

1.) Are they big? In otherwords, do they have a monster rebounder that could come away with an intentional miss. The refs tend to let them play on that type of game situation.

2.) How well do they press and trap? I would be more reluctant to use this method against a team that has a good full-court press/trap defense. They could make both free throws, then trap and get the T/O. Clemson comes to mind.

hurleyfor3
03-05-2010, 09:50 AM
No. You're already in a situation where you cannot lose in regulation. Why risk turning it into a situation where you possibly can?

MulletMan
03-05-2010, 10:02 AM
No. Don't foul. By fouling you are admitting that you are willing to give up 2 points and get the ball back to inbound.

If that is the case, then guard the three point line with all five guys and give up a lay up or a tough three point shot. The tough three may go in, but the odds are in your favor that it won't... I mean, is there a team that shoots better than 40% from three? That means under normal game conditions, you have a 60% chance that a three is missing. This percentage goes up in the last couple of seconds with your defense focused on the three point line.

If you defend for even 5-7 seconds and give up a lay up, you're no worse off than if you'd fouled and the other team sinks two FTs. The "are they in the bonus" question is a moot point, because if you're fouling to prevent the three, you're going to foul until they are on the line. There is also the chance that what appears to be an easy lay up may spin out. Even if they make it, you're still up one and have possession.

As noted above, there are lots of freaky things that can happen when you start fouling to prevent points. Make the first, miss the second, get the rebound and put back, or get fouled for more FTs, or retain possession through a tie up where the arrow is in your favor.

No... play D, let them launch or take the two. At least you're making them MAKE A PLAY, and you're ensuring yourself of getting the ball back if they do score. Not the case if you send them to the line.

mgtr
03-05-2010, 10:10 AM
No. You're already in a situation where you cannot lose in regulation. Why risk turning it into a situation where you possibly can?

And we have a winner! I think this is a great answer. I wish I had thought of it this way.:o

Olympic Fan
03-05-2010, 10:16 AM
I can see the argument for the other side, but I'm in the don't-foul camp.

Just an example, did anybody see Florida at NC State earlier this year?

State's up three with 15 seconds left and gives a foul rather than the 3-point try. Florida hits 2 FTs, then fouls State. State makes both shots to go up three again and fouls again with about 5 seconds left. Florida makes both shots to get within one. Florida quickly fouls State with something like 3 seconds left.

The State guy makes one, but misses the second ... Florida rebounds and the guy hits a 70-foot shot ... Florida wins by one. State's fouling strategy turned a potential OT situation into a loss.

I also remember the Duke-State game in 2000, when up three, Duke tried to give a foul. But as soon as Justin Gainey was fouled, he threw up a shot and the refs gave him three free throws with 0.8 seconds left. He made the first, missed the second, missed the third on purpose and a guy named Marshall Williams tipped it in to force OT. Duke won in OT, but the fouling strategy could have cost Duke the game (what if Gainey hits the second FT?).

I say defend the 3-point line ... the one mistake I see in this situation is teams that still have defenders in the lane or defenders than follow drivers, allowing kickouts. DEFEND THE 3-POINT LINE WITH FIVE GUYS and leave the basket unprotected.

davekay1971
03-05-2010, 10:20 AM
I say defend the 3-point line ... the one mistake I see in this situation is teams that still have defenders in the lane or defenders than follow drivers, allowing kickouts. DEFEND THE 3-POINT LINE WITH FIVE GUYS and leave the basket unprotected.

This is my view. The advantage is all on the defense, because you know exactly what the other side needs to do. Even if they are a good 3 point shooting team, if you simply focus on defending the 3 point line, they are going to have to take a low percentage 3, either from farther out than they would like, or a defended shot. If they make a great shot (*&$# Scotty Thurmon) then good for them and you go to OT. But the odds are in your favor.

Reilly
03-05-2010, 10:33 AM
No. You're already in a situation where you cannot lose in regulation. Why risk turning it into a situation where you possibly can?

The object of the game is to win, not tie.

Odds of them hitting a 3 to tie, then wining in OT: .3 x .5=15%, say (or whatever values you want to assign)

Odds of them hitting 1 or 2 of 2 FTs, getting the ball back, and hitting another shot to win = ???

Assign the probability of everything that needs to happen, figure the overall chance of them winning, and either foul (or not) accordingly.

vlove
03-05-2010, 10:36 AM
harkening back to 2000, the "disaster" scenario almost played out against NCSU in Cameron. Holding on to a 3 point lead with the clock winding down, K opted for the foul. However, Justin Gainey was able to get a shot off, and not only did he get 3 shots for being fould while attempting the 3, he came awfully, awfully close to actually nailing the shot & going to the line for a game winning 4 point play. He sunk all 3 FTs, although C-Well & the gang were able to scratch out the win in OT (a common occurrence for that team).

That's the last time I recall K opting for the foul in that scenario. Another dilemma worth contemplating, which we've seen play out a few times- on the FT line with less than 2 seconds, 1 point lead. Opposing team has no timeouts. Assuming 1st FT is made for a 2 point lead, do you intentionally miss the second to avoid letting the other team set up an inbounds play, thereby requiring them to both successfully rebound the miss and heave it the length of the court in the second or so left they'd have to do it? I'm pretty sure K utilized this strategy against Illinois one year during the ACC/Big 10 Challenge

hurleyfor3
03-05-2010, 10:52 AM
Another dilemma worth contemplating, which we've seen play out a few times- on the FT line with less than 2 seconds, 1 point lead. Opposing team has no timeouts. Assuming 1st FT is made for a 2 point lead, do you intentionally miss the second to avoid letting the other team set up an inbounds play, thereby requiring them to both successfully rebound the miss and heave it the length of the court in the second or so left they'd have to do it?

I like this strategy. It was close to how the Ky/Stanford '98 national semifinal game ended, although I'm not sure Ky intentionally missed its last free throw.

The trailing (and rebounding) team nowadays might be better off calling an illegal timeout and eating the T. If the team in the lead doesn't make both its free throws, or was up by only one to begin with, you're better off inbounding the ball and drawing up a play. Grant, can you throw it 80 feet?

(edit: You need a three. Grant would only have to throw it 75 feet.)

crimsonandblue
03-05-2010, 10:58 AM
Fifteen seconds is too much time to foul. If you're at 8 seconds or under when the other team gets/inbounds the ball, I think you generally should foul just shy of half court. You've likely taken a further second or two off the clock and you've put yourself in a position where the shooting team cannot tie absent some serious shenanigans.

Saying that you defend the three point line is fine, but you absolutely cannot foul in that situation, so that's easier said then done.

I'd foul and take my chances anywhere under 8 ticks on the clock. Above that, there's time for multiple possessions.

UrinalCake
03-05-2010, 11:06 AM
No. You're already in a situation where you cannot lose in regulation. Why risk turning it into a situation where you possibly can?

Exactly. To expand a bit, if you play straight up then the absolute worst that can happen is that they tie the game (assuming you don't foul them on a three, and if you do that they you just deserve to lose anyways). If you deliberately foul, there are all kinds of things that can go wrong, most of which have already been mentioned:

- opponent misses second free throw, gets rebound and scores or is fouled again
- opponent sees what you're trying to do and shoots as you're fouling them, giving them three free throws
- opponent makes both free throws, traps on the inbounds and gets a steal
- opponent makes both free throws, then fouls you, you miss one or two, then opponent comes back and makes a basket.

It always drives me crazy when the announcers (especially Dick Vitale) start screaming that a team should foul in this situation.

merry
03-05-2010, 11:13 AM
You never give the other team the opportunity to score on a dead clock. Play close defense, allow NO threes and let it play out. If you do foul (not on a 3), then you get the intentionally foul result. Make them use time.

Are there stats on this like, there are for baseball where despite fan perception my recollection is that there are stats showing an out is never a good thing (i.e. a sacrifice out).

Reilly
03-05-2010, 11:17 AM
Exactly. To expand a bit, if you play straight up then the absolute worst that can happen is that they tie the game (assuming you don't foul them on a three, and if you do that they you just deserve to lose anyways). ....

No, the absolute worst that can happen is that you lose in regulation or lose in overtime and either is equally bad -- it's a loss. The object is not to get to the end of regulation tied. The object is to win.

A similar analysis applies to a football team down 7 that scores a touchdown at the end of regulation. Go for 1 and the almost sure tie and OT; or go for 2 and win (or lose). Assign probability: the probability of winning in OT is maybe 50%; what's the probability of making the 2-point conversion? If higher than 50, then go for 2.

Bluedog
03-05-2010, 11:17 AM
I think I'll go against most people here and say that you should foul when it's under 5 seconds - 15 is way too much, though. Just ask Memphis or our own women's team. They both may have national championships if they fouled. The defense against Maryland on the final play was pathetic, especially against a deadly shorter. (So wasn't just a bad strategy, but bad execution.) Chalmers hit a pretty good shot. I agree that it's case-by-case basis. The percentages just seem to favor fouling, in my opinion when under five second. NBA is completely different since you don't have to go the length of the court when you call a TO, so there it makes no sense. And obviously you can come up of examples where fouling didn't work. It doesn't always. But defending the three doesn't either as I just gave examples of two national championship games in the last four years. TN also fouled against Memphis that year and ended up winning, if I recall it correctly. We had a similar situation this year, and Zoubek guarded off the screen and put up a good hand and they missed; so it worked in that situation to not foul. But I think it's just much easier to make one three than it is to make the first foul shot, get rebound, and then make a shot. Yes, it's possible that you could lose in regulation, but it's very unlikely.

SupaDave
03-05-2010, 11:26 AM
Are you home or away?

CDu
03-05-2010, 11:37 AM
No, the absolute worst that can happen is that you lose in regulation or lose in overtime and either is equally bad -- it's a loss. The object is not to get to the end of regulation tied. The object is to win.

A similar analysis applies to a football team down 7 that scores a touchdown at the end of regulation. Go for 1 and the almost sure tie and OT; or go for 2 and win (or lose). Assign probability: the probability of winning in OT is maybe 50%; what's the probability of making the 2-point conversion? If higher than 50, then go for 2.

Exactly. It's not hockey, where you get points for going to overtime. The object is to win the game, either in regulation or overtime. Going to overtime just extends the length of the game.

Not fouling decreases the likelihood of overtime, but it doesn't necessarily increase the likelihood of winning.

Fouling probably decreases the likelihood of overtime, but it may increase the likelihood of winning in regulation. If the increase in likelihood of winning in regulation more than offsets the decreased likelihood of winning in overtime, it's better to foul.

It certainly may be the case hat not fouling increases the likelihood of winning. But I think it's dependent upon the situation. And it's not as cut and dry as saying "not fouling reduces the likelihood of losing in regulation."

Wander
03-05-2010, 11:38 AM
I'm a little shocked at the responses here. No hard numbers, but I'm about 99% sure that teams that don't foul up by 3 end up losing more often than teams that do by a pretty significant margin. I don't know that I've ever seen a college game where a team has won off the "intentional foul missed free throw on purpose" thing. Maybe once or twice. But I've seen a bunch of examples of the opposite - Kansas/Memphis title game, Ohio State/Xavier 2nd round game, Duke/Maryland women's title game, etc.

But 15 seconds might be too much. Under 5 though, you should foul.

hurleyfor3
03-05-2010, 11:48 AM
Kansas didn't foul Davidson at the end of their regional final in 2008... Davidson missed. I'm glad we didn't foul Anderson Hunt in 1991 (only down two, not that it matters much). We didn't foul at the end of the game @unc in 2004 after Duhon's coast-to-coast and unc missed at the buzzer. OTOH we didn't foul @unc in 2000 and Joe Forte hit his three, and we didn't foul at St. John's in 1999 and had Eric Barkley hit his three. We won both those games anyway. Wait, I got a more obscure one! Scott Burrell, 1990.

I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here. You might as well get us to start rooting for unc. The above examples and others (scotty thurman), however, evince K's preference not to foul.

Kfanarmy
03-05-2010, 12:00 PM
I like this strategy. It was close to how the Ky/Stanford '98 national semifinal game ended, although I'm not sure Ky intentionally missed its last free throw.

The trailing (and rebounding) team nowadays might be better off calling an illegal timeout and eating the T. If the team in the lead doesn't make both its free throws, or was up by only one to begin with, you're better off inbounding the ball and drawing up a play. Grant, can you throw it 80 feet?

(edit: You need a three. Grant would only have to throw it 75 feet.)

unfortunately after a technical, you don't get the ball after they shoot the freebies....

hurleyfor3
03-05-2010, 12:08 PM
unfortunately after a technical, you don't get the ball after they shoot the freebies....

So the NCAA thought of that when they otherwise changed the T rule from "two shots and the ball" to "two shots and possession stays with who had it"?

Guess they don't want any more Paul Westphal/Gar Heard technical-that-benefits-you incidents.

UrinalCake
03-05-2010, 12:26 PM
I'm about 99% sure that teams that don't foul up by 3 end up losing more often than teams that do by a pretty significant margin.

I think there are a couple of reasons for this perception:

1.) very few teams actually do foul in this situation, so you don't have a lot of examples to draw from
2.) game-tying threes tend to make SportsCenter, while missed free throws when you're already losing do not.

jv001
03-05-2010, 12:30 PM
What would Jimmy V have done in this case. He was the best at delaying a game by fouling and shooting the 3 to extend the game. Bet he would foul if he was up 3 with 4 or 5 seconds remaining. Go Duke!

EKU1969
03-05-2010, 01:26 PM
I am pretty sure Jimmy V would foul! Back then it was always one and one and he wanted to put the other team on the line to make the throws. In today's situation, he guards against the 3 IMHO.

crimsonandblue
03-05-2010, 01:32 PM
Kansas didn't foul Davidson at the end of their regional final in 2008... Davidson missed. I'm glad we didn't foul Anderson Hunt in 1991 (only down two, not that it matters much). We didn't foul at the end of the game @unc in 2004 after Duhon's coast-to-coast and unc missed at the buzzer. OTOH we didn't foul @unc in 2000 and Joe Forte hit his three, and we didn't foul at St. John's in 1999 and had Eric Barkley hit his three. We won both those games anyway. Wait, I got a more obscure one! Scott Burrell, 1990.

I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here. You might as well get us to start rooting for unc. The above examples and others (scotty thurman), however, evince K's preference not to foul.

Kansas was up only two.

jv001
03-05-2010, 01:35 PM
I am pretty sure Jimmy V would foul! Back then it was always one and one and he wanted to put the other team on the line to make the throws. In today's situation, he guards against the 3 IMHO.

John, Coach Valvano was one of the very best in game coaches that I saw. Too bad that he left us so soon in life. Go Duke!

SCMatt33
03-05-2010, 02:13 PM
I think time is a very important factor here. If you foul with just 5 seconds left on the clock, they could make two free throws and foul you with at least 4 seconds still on the clock and that's enough time to dribble the length of the court (a la Tyus Edney). You've basically pitted their free throw shooting against yours. If you don't make both, you bring a loss into the equation without the other team needing an offensive rebound, a home run pass, or a half court shot.

If you can foul with 2 seconds left, go ahead, the other teams' options are much more limited. The risk is that if the clock is winding down, they are more likely to take a shot and get a shooting foul. If someone is down three and tries to run a Bryce Drew (Valpo) play, foul on the pass. If he's just about to or has just caught the ball and hasn't turned yet, it won't be a shooting foul.

The two mistakes that most people make when they argue that you should automatically foul are: 1) It's easy to foul without getting a shooting foul called at any time. 2) This is the final possession. Once they are at the line, there is only enough time to try a tip in, or if they make both, there will only be enough time for a half court heave or home run pass. Neither are true. It is a skill to foul without the other player getting a shot off, especially if he suspects it's coming (which would be the case if it became common practice). You have to either foul in the middle of a dribble or when he's catching a pass. As for the timing, unless there are less than 4 seconds left when you foul, you haven't forced your opponent to intentionally miss a free throw, you've only helped them to extend the game.

Go back and watch a lot of the miracle three's. Rarely was there an opportunity to foul with both enough time off of the clock AND the ball handler not in a position to take a shot and draw a shooting foul.

Turtleboy
03-05-2010, 03:09 PM
I don't know how many times I screamed FOUL HIM NOW when Randolph Childress was bringing the ball up in such a situation. I did not want that guy taking a last second 3 pointer.

EKU1969
03-05-2010, 03:23 PM
John, Coach Valvano was one of the very best in game coaches that I saw. Too bad that he left us so soon in life. Go Duke!

Agree totally. Lived in Cary in '83 when State beat Phi Slamma Jamma; went running out the back door screaming! He's the reason for the 10 foul 2 shot rule...a great strategy against lousy free throw shooting teams back then...not so good against the better ones.

SCMatt33
03-13-2010, 08:38 PM
For anybody who just watched the end of the Pac-10 title game, Washington just executed the fouling strategy perfectly. Here's the scenario.

Cal was down 3 and called timeout after crossing mid-court, giving them the ball in the front court with just over 10 seconds left. The Cal player dribbled the ball about 15 ft behind the 3pt line for a few seconds and then made a move toward the 3pt line. The Washington player fouled the Cal player by trying to poke the ball in the middle of a dribble (and actually almost stole it cleanly) with 4.4 seconds left. After making the first, Cal attempted to miss the second on purpose, but the shooter committed a lane violation. Cal only had committed 5 fouls so they had to foul twice to get Washington to the line, leaving only 2.1 seconds left. Washington made both to stretch the lead to four and ice the game.

Now, there were several things that Washington had to do right AND Cal do wrong to allow this scenario to play out. First, Washington fouled with UNDER 5 seconds left. By waiting, they prevented Cal from simply making both shots and fouling again with enough time to get up the court and still get a 3 to tie anyway. Cal helped facilitate this by not getting into shooting position and trying to hold for the last shot. If Cal was in their offense and near the 3pt line before Washington tried to foul, they may have been able to get into shooting motion. Cal also blew their chance when they committed a lane violation, taking away any chance to get the ball.

This one goes in the books as a plus for fouling, but bear in mind that there were very specific circumstances that allowed it to happen. Nothing annoys me more than when announcer claim that a team should have fouled when the other team was in their set offense with 15 seconds left and then took the shot with 7 or 8 seconds left. The leading team might not have had a good chance to guarantee a common and not shooting foul and there was too much time to force a team to try and miss on purpose.

uh_no
03-14-2010, 03:26 AM
unfortunately after a technical, you don't get the ball after they shoot the freebies....

in this case you do.....

its quite a misnomer that a technical foul means 2 shots and the ball....that is, in fact, not usually the case

what happens is that after the foul shots are taken, the ball is inbounded by the last team that had it....for example if K was teed up today while duke was bringing the ball up, play would be stopped, miami would take their shots, and we'd get the ball back at the point where the play was stopped......

the only time you get the ball back is in the case of a flagrant foul where the basket was not made...other than that the ball returns to whoever had it

hurleyfor3
03-14-2010, 08:15 AM
This one goes in the books as a plus for fouling, but bear in mind that there were very specific circumstances that allowed it to happen.

Most importantly that Cal had a foul to give, which usually doesn't happen. Funny how it's possible to have fouled "not often enough" during the rest of the game when it comes to the endgame.

uh_no
03-14-2010, 03:08 PM
well apparently miss st should have defended the 3....but i don't think the foul was intentional

doctorhook
03-14-2010, 03:26 PM
I do not like the foul strategy. Anybody watch the Ky MSU game? Exact scenario, MSU fouls and almost loses in regulation then gets tied and goes to overtime. Ky wins.

CDu
03-14-2010, 03:32 PM
I do not like the foul strategy. Anybody watch the Ky MSU game? Exact scenario, MSU fouls and almost loses in regulation then gets tied and goes to overtime. Ky wins.

Not sure a one-game sample really seals the argument in either direction. But yes, today was an example of nearly the worst-case scenario of the "foul" strategy. I'm sure one can point to another game that shows the best-case scenario.

But this is going to be one of those issues that doesn't have a clear-cut answer. It's one of those 55/45 type things, and it would be very hard to prove which strategy is the 55 and which is the 45.

dcarp23
03-14-2010, 03:33 PM
Have not gotten to see the full replay, but it seemed to me that Bledsoe was in the lane well before the shot hit the rim. Was I mistaken?

doctorhook
03-14-2010, 03:35 PM
Not sure a one-game sample really seals the argument in either direction. But yes, today was an example of nearly the worst-case scenario of the "foul" strategy. I'm sure one can point to another game that shows the best-case scenario.

But this is going to be one of those issues that doesn't have a clear-cut answer. It's one of those 55/45 type things, and it would be very hard to prove which strategy is the 55 and which is the 45.
CDu,

You are correct, and you never know what would have happened if Bledsoe is not fouled. I am suprised that some stat geek somewhere has not come up with numbers on this subject.

Should we start a running total here on DBR?

InSpades
03-14-2010, 03:36 PM
Have not gotten to see the full replay, but it seemed to me that Bledsoe was in the lane well before the shot hit the rim. Was I mistaken?

They were just talking about that on ESPN... they seemed to think Wall was the one in the lane too early (Bledsoe was the shooter, Wall was not on the blocks).

CLW
03-14-2010, 03:37 PM
the plan Miss St. employed was/is the right one. if the SEC refs didn't blow a no call on the Wall lane violation they probably do not get the rebound and Miss St. is dancing. now, they are probably n.i.t. bound.

the refs literally gave that game to kentucky such a shame.

AlaskanAssassin
03-14-2010, 03:37 PM
Have not gotten to see the full replay, but it seemed to me that Bledsoe was in the lane well before the shot hit the rim. Was I mistaken?

Wall was well in the three point line before the ball was shot. That would be considered as a lane violation. He got the rebound because of that, how could they box him out when he sneaked up there before the ball was shot.

dcarp23
03-14-2010, 03:50 PM
Wall was well in the three point line before the ball was shot. That would be considered as a lane violation. He got the rebound because of that, how could they box him out when he sneaked up there before the ball was shot.

Interesting-I didn't even notice Wall but thought that Bledsoe took off early after letting the ball go.

uh_no
03-14-2010, 04:01 PM
Interesting-I didn't even notice Wall but thought that Bledsoe took off early after letting the ball go.

the shooter is supposed to wait till the ball hits the rim

SCMatt33
03-14-2010, 04:17 PM
This goes to show you that the situation is as important as anything. I said on the chat before that play that Kentucky should NOT be fouled, because they have a limited number of 3 point shooters and excellent offensive rebounders.

CDu
03-14-2010, 04:30 PM
This goes to show you that the situation is as important as anything. I said on the chat before that play that Kentucky should NOT be fouled, because they have a limited number of 3 point shooters and excellent offensive rebounders.

I agree. In addition to it being a close call either way to begin with, whether the decision sways toward "foul" or "no foul" depends a lot on the opponent. Not only is it a tough call period, it's not necessarily the same answer for every opponent (or even every team making the decision).

House G
03-14-2010, 04:32 PM
I would have fouled the guy as Miss. State did. However, I would have tried to wait a second or two more. They fouled with 4.9 seconds, I believe, and about 30 feet from the goal. Obviously, the longer you wait the greater risk you take of the player beginning the act of shooting. As my secretary once said, "You know what they say about hindsight?....It's 50-50" :D

scottdude8
03-14-2010, 05:01 PM
To answer the original question (and as a former youth basketball coach)... I would say NEVER, and what happened in the Kentucky game is exactly why. In this type of situation, the team that is down is hoping to extend the game as long as possible (this is why they foul). By fouling the team that is down, the winning team extends the game for them, leaving more time for there to be a fluke or stupid mistake that changes the game (just like in today's contest). The only situation I would EVER justify such a decision is if there was only two or three seconds left, ie too little time for anything to realistically happen after the FTs.

CDu
03-14-2010, 05:20 PM
To answer the original question (and as a former youth basketball coach)... I would say NEVER, and what happened in the Kentucky game is exactly why. In this type of situation, the team that is down is hoping to extend the game as long as possible (this is why they foul). By fouling the team that is down, the winning team extends the game for them, leaving more time for there to be a fluke or stupid mistake that changes the game (just like in today's contest). The only situation I would EVER justify such a decision is if there was only two or three seconds left, ie too little time for anything to realistically happen after the FTs.

I think we all agree that fouling with 15 seconds left is a bad idea (too many possessions left. So when answering, I just made the mental shift from 15 seconds to 3-5 seconds. Then, I think the answer is very unclear, and scenario-specific.

pfrduke
03-25-2010, 11:59 PM
This reared its ugly head in the K-State game - didn't get the call while he was on the ground, and then ended up giving the foul on the shot.

-bdbd
03-26-2010, 12:12 AM
I agree with thposters concerned about doing it too early. Make them vburn some precious seconds before doing anything like that.

What I tell the team is to play tough, physical D. So if we get whistled, all the better. But in general, I want to see time burned first then player fouled (esp if one of their better rebounders touches the ball - to take him out of the lane during the FT) - but clearly not in the act of shooting.

I just HATE it when teams foul right away, and then the trailing team gets to walk up the court and make it close w/o time elapsing. Then still have time to defend/foul us again on the in-bounds, and recycle the process...

tele
03-26-2010, 09:26 AM
Stopping the clock by fouling just favors the trailing team. Also doesn't say much for your confidence in your defense in the end game.

airowe
03-26-2010, 09:52 AM
This reared its ugly head in the K-State game - didn't get the call while he was on the ground, and then ended up giving the foul on the shot.

Yeah, I was thinking about this thread after that went down. Just goes to show you should rely on your team to play out the game instead of putting your fate in the hands of the refs.

mehmattski
03-26-2010, 10:47 AM
Googling resulted in the following ESPN article:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/6992/up-three-without-the-ball-to-foul-or-not-new-insight

With this quote from Wayne Winston's book "Mathletics":


A student in my sports and math class, Kevin Klocke, looked at all NBA games from 2005 through 2008 in which a team had the ball with 1-10 seconds left and trailed by three points. The leading team did not foul 260 times and won 91.9% of the games. The leading team did foul 27 times and won 88.9% of the games. This seems to indicate that fouling does not significantly increase a team's chances of winning when they are three points ahead

The author then goes on to make a Star Wars analogy. Good stuff.

Matches
03-26-2010, 10:59 AM
I'm not a fan of fouling in that situation. IMO when you've got a lead like that you make the other team make a play to beat you. The fouling scenario allows them to tie the game by getting a lucky bounce on a missed FT.

I definitely agree with the idea of intentionally missing the 2nd FT when you're ahead, there's only 2-3 seconds left, and the opposition is out of timeouts. Just not enough time for them to get the ball up the court and get a shot.