To foul or not to foul

[Olympic Fan]

We've all heard the major debate over the question of whether a defending team, up three points in the final seconds, should foul intentionally to prevent a game-tying 3-point attempt or just play honest defense. I think last weekend's Wisconsin-Michigan game illustrates the dangers of giving up the 3-point attempt. It seems like every announcer in his wisdom thinks fouling is the best strategy.

Ken Pomeroy finally decided to test the data. He examined every D1 game since the 2010 season in which that situation occurred (the team down 3 gets the ball with less than 12 seconds left). His conclusion is that NOT fouling is -- by a very small measure -- the better strategy. Basucally, he calculates that the teams that defend win 94.0 percent of the time in that situation, while the teams that foul win 92.7 percent:

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/yet_another_study_about_fouling_when_up_3

Interesting to me that coaches seem to instinctively agree with his conclusion -- by an almost 5-to-1 margin, they elect to defend and not foul.

Anyway, i thought this was interesting stuff.

[Bluedog]

I think last weekend's Wisconsin-Michigan game illustrates the dangers of giving up the 3-point attempt.

Well, during that game, fouling was a NO BRAINER because both teams had fouls to give. Wisconsin should have clearly fouled and not given up an open 3 with three seconds left. Make them devise a play to get an open look inbounding the ball with 3 seconds left - that's a lot harder then setting up a play with 15 seconds. And when Michigan was playing defense, I would say normally it makes sense not to foul in that situation because Wisconsin was going to have to put up a half court desperation 3 (wouldn't have the chance to actually get a good look), but Michigan ALSO had fouls to give. Grab the guy's arm!

[oldnavy]

So, you're telling me that I have a chance??? Classic line!

Anyway, it seems that if you have a 3 point lead on the last possession you have a really good chance of winning the game? Makes sense. If I were not lazy I would run a p-value to see if the results are statistically significant (chances are that the 1.3% difference is not significant), but I don't care that much. :p

I guess a lot would depend on the exact circumstances of the game, like time left, where the ball is being inbounded, etc..

It is one of those arguments that if you don't foul and go to overtime you made the wrong choice. If you don't foul and win, it was the right choice... perfect for Monday morning QB's like us!!

[rsvman]

.....It is one of those arguments that if you don't foul and go to overtime you made the wrong choice. If you don't foul and win, it was the right choice... perfect for Monday morning QB's like us!!

This.


I remember a game long ago (forgotten by pretty much everybody in the world) in which BYU was down three to San Diego State and BYU had the last possession. Danny Ainge was fouled.

He made the first free throw. Then, as the ref was just extending his hand with the ball in it for the second free throw, Ainge very quickly reached over, grabbed the ball, and in one fluid movement "shot" the ball so that it hit the front rim and bounced back toward him. Before anybody could even figure out what was happening, he rebounded the ball and made the floater in the lane to tie the game.

Point is, you never know what's going to happen, even if you do foul. The player could also just miss and the ball could be tipped back in.

[Reilly]

... Interesting to me that coaches seem to instinctively agree with his conclusion -- by an almost 5-to-1 margin, they elect to defend and not foul....

You might be giving the coaches too much (or too little) credit.

Maybe some coaches have run the numbers and are making a thoughtful decision, and it's not just instinct.

On the other hand, maybe the decision of some coaches is an unthinking one that just happens to align with the numbers. Maybe it is inertia (that's just what most have done since forever, not foul) -- rather than thoughtfulness or even instinct -- that gets them to a decision that kenpom's numbers now validate.

And some coaches may wrongly think -- like the end of the 2010 title game -- "well, the worse thing that can happen is a tie" -- that is, they don't think the problem through to what they should be thinking about (which decisions make victory most probable) and instead think about an interim step (the end of regulation may be a tie and that's ok).

[JasonEvans]

I would be very interested in seeing a different set of numbers-- rather than with 12 seconds left, what is the result if you foul with less than 4 seconds left?

I have always felt that the foul when there are only 3 or 4 seconds left (or less) makes sense. It means that even if the other team makes their FTs and then fouls you, there is little time left for them to get off a decent shot. 12 seconds or so is a lot of time for stuff to happen. As there is less and less time left, I think fouling makes more sense.

I would much much rather put my team at the line up 1 with 2 or 3 seconds left versus the other team having the ball, down 3, and having a chance to get off a good shot because there are 10 or so seconds left on the clock. Oh, and the other thing is that if there is less than 4 seconds left and I am up 1 or perhaps even up 2, I am missing the FT every time rather than letting them inbound the ball and get to advance it up the court with no time coming off the clock (this only applies is the opposing team is out of timeouts, as a timeout would allow them to inbound the ball and takes away the advantage of missing the FT).

-Jason "of course, it should be noted that I am not a coach and the above opinions might be laughed at by someone paid to coach basketball" Evans

[PackMan97]

Basucally, he calculates that the teams that defend win 94.0 percent of the time in that situation, while the teams that foul win 92.7 percent:


Lost in this is the fact that the team that is winning basically wins 92.7-94% of the time. Teams should focus less on deciding to foul or not foul and more on being the team ahead by three in the closing seconds :)

[mbwalker]

And some coaches may wrongly think -- like the end of the 2010 title game -- "well, the worse thing that can happen is a tie" -- that is, they don't think the problem through to what they should be thinking about (which decisions make victory most probable) and instead think about an interim step (the end of regulation may be a tie and that's ok).

Actually, in the 2010 title game, Duke was ahead by two, so the worse thing that could have happened was that Butler makes the shot and Duke loses. As I recall, Coach K's argument was that if Zoubek had made the free throw (putting Duke up by 3) and then Butler had time to set up for -- and make -- the three to force a tie, that Duke would lose in overtime. So he was willing to let the dice roll with a deliberately missed free throw. That may or may not have been lousy logic, but it did work out ok for Duke.

[Reilly]

Actually, in the 2010 title game, Duke was ahead by two, so the worse thing that could have happened was that Butler makes the shot and Duke loses. As I recall, Coach K's argument was that if Zoubek had made the free throw (putting Duke up by 3) and then Butler had time to set up for -- and make -- the three to force a tie, that Duke would lose in overtime. So he was willing to let the dice roll with a deliberately missed free throw. That may or may not have been lousy logic, but it did work out ok for Duke.

The soundness of K's decision was covered in another thread at the time. I didn't want to reopen that debate. [K's decision was sound based on the various probabilities he assigned to the proper variables; others may have assigned other probabilities to variables and chosen a different path; the thing is -- K was thinking about the proper variables.] I brought all that up not to say the situations were the same -- they were not, as you note -- but rather to say that some coaches' thinking about whether to foul when up by 3 might be along the same lines as the thinking of some commenters who were critical of the strategy of having Zoub try to miss the FT: namely, that some coaches -- and the critical commenters -- may be focused on the wrong thing (the interim step of at worse getting a tie) rather than focusing on the ultimate prize of victory.

[nmduke2001]

Ask Coach G if you should foul in the situation. I am positive that she would now say yes. Not fouling cost her a national title and an incredible legacy at Duke.

Put me solidly on the side of fouling up 3.

[InSpades]

I think part of the reason that coach's don't foul is that you run the risk of fouling a shooter. It's easy to say "they let them shoot w/ 3 seconds left! all they had to do was foul!" but if they had fouled them w/ 3 seconds left then it would likely have been a shooting foul. They would have had to foul them sooner and you still run the risk of the guy throwing up a shot just as you are going to foul him. I think it's a fine line.

[gam7]

As pointed out above, the issue being discussed here was not the issue in the Wisc-Mich game. Not only did both teams have fouls to give, but they had numerous fouls to give. I think Wisc only had 3 team fouls in the second half (and Mich had four I think). In this situation, it may make some sense to foul, but it's not as easy to do it knowing that the other team is expecting you to foul and will throw up a shot as soon as you try to foul hoping for a shooting foul. Plus, if the game goes to overtime, you are already in the bonus when you don't have to be. I think the way to play it is to try to make the other team think you are going to foul, but then not foul.

Plus, Hardaway's shot was very well defended. That's about as well as you can defend that shot. It's unlikely Wisc could've forced a lower percentage shot better if they had burned all of their extra fouls and left Mich with 5 seconds on the clock. With 2 seconds left, it would've made more sense for Michigan to foul quickly to leave Wisc with less than a second to generate a good shot.

In Wisc's shoes, if executed properly, I think as a coach you tell your team in a prior timeout that you are going to yell at them before the play to foul the person with the ball but to ignore that instruction (but act as though they'll try to be fouling). Then, alert the refs that you are going to be telling your team to foul, but that they will not be trying to foul. Then, when both teams are on the court, make sure the other team's players hear you yelling at your team to foul the person with the ball. Those players of course have been told to get in the shooting motion when they are going to get fouled. The other team will be jumpy and half-trying to draw the foul. This would be really distracting to the guys with the ball.

I also think this would work for placekickers in football. Lead the kicker to believe you'll call a time out. Have the coach stand next to the sideline ref as though he's going to call a TO just before the snap and then not call the timeout. I think this would mess with a kicker more than actually trying to freeze him.

[hillsborodevil]

I've made the statement a long time ago and got blasted here on DBR (maybe for good reason) but I would direct a team to foul when your up by 1, rather than risk defending a three point or two point shot as time expires. My thinking is I would rather have the ball down by 1 versus defending up by one for the last possession.

This scenario played out Sunday @ BC. Obviously it played out well for Duke. Of course there are a ton of factors when considering to foul or not. BC actually got off a good shot but missed terribly. If they had made the shot Duke probably wouldn't have had time to score.

Factors would be if the other team was in the "bonus" - two shoots, the FT percentage of the players, foul trouble, type of game, blah blah blah.

By no means am I questioning Coach K - he is the best coach period. I'm just saying that I could see a team playing a different strategy.

[Bluedog]

I've made the statement a long time ago and got blasted here on DBR (maybe for good reason) but I would direct a team to foul when your up by 1, rather than risk defending a three point or two point shot as time expires. My thinking is I would rather have the ball down by 1 versus defending up by one for the last possession.

This scenario played out Sunday @ BC. Obviously it played out well for Duke. Of course there are a ton of factors when considering to foul or not. BC actually got off a good shot but missed terribly. If they had made the shot Duke probably wouldn't have had time to score.

Factors would be if the other team was in the "bonus" - two shoots, the FT percentage of the players, foul trouble, type of game, blah blah blah.

By no means am I questioning Coach K - he is the best coach period. I'm just saying that I could see a team playing a different strategy.

It depends on if your team is better offensively or defensively (and if your opponent has a poor free throw shooter) - I'll agree it's not a ridiculous strategy even though teams never do it. Last year's team defense was pretty poor, so I'd rather have the ball with the chance to win on a last second shot down 1 (a la River's dagger, although that was down 2), then have to defend on the last possession up 1. But this year is much better defensively.

[devildeac]

As pointed out above, the issue being discussed here was not the issue in the Wisc-Mich game. Not only did both teams have fouls to give, but they had numerous fouls to give. I think Wisc only had 3 team fouls in the second half (and Mich had four I think). In this situation, it may make some sense to foul, but it's not as easy to do it knowing that the other team is expecting you to foul and will throw up a shot as soon as you try to foul hoping for a shooting foul. Plus, if the game goes to overtime, you are already in the bonus when you don't have to be. I think the way to play it is to try to make the other team think you are going to foul, but then not foul.

Plus, Hardaway's shot was very well defended. That's about as well as you can defend that shot. It's unlikely Wisc could've forced a lower percentage shot better if they had burned all of their extra fouls and left Mich with 5 seconds on the clock. With 2 seconds left, it would've made more sense for Michigan to foul quickly to leave Wisc with less than a second to generate a good shot.

In Wisc's shoes, if executed properly, I think as a coach you tell your team in a prior timeout that you are going to yell at them before the play to foul the person with the ball but to ignore that instruction (but act as though they'll try to be fouling). Then, alert the refs that you are going to be telling your team to foul, but that they will not be trying to foul. Then, when both teams are on the court, make sure the other team's players hear you yelling at your team to foul the person with the ball. Those players of course have been told to get in the shooting motion when they are going to get fouled. The other team will be jumpy and half-trying to draw the foul. This would be really distracting to the guys with the ball.

I also think this would work for placekickers in football. Lead the kicker to believe you'll call a time out. Have the coach stand next to the sideline ref as though he's going to call a TO just before the snap and then not call the timeout. I think this would mess with a kicker more than actually trying to freeze him.

Or, send a 12th man on the field, incur an illegal substitution penalty when you have no TO left as the kicker makes a 53 yd FG and make him kick it over again from 48 yds and miss at the end of a half. Ever seen that before?:mad:

[awhom111]

After following European Basketball for a little while, it seems that most coaches there favor fouling when up 3 late.

Last week this did backfire though in a game that Marty Pocius was on the bench for. His coach elected to foul and FC Barcelona was able to score after rebounding the missed second free throw to send the game into another extra five minutes and Real Madrid later lost.

[mkirsh]

After following European Basketball for a little while, it seems that most coaches there favor fouling when up 3 late.

Last week this did backfire though in a game that Marty Pocius was on the bench for. His coach elected to foul and FC Barcelona was able to score after rebounding the missed second free throw to send the game into another extra five minutes and Real Madrid later lost.

In this situation, where a team is down by three but heading to the line to make the first and then intentionally miss the second, I've always wondered why the defensive team (ie the team that is ahead) doesn't just repeatedly incur lane violations on the second free throw until the shooter accidentally makes. Maybe the refs call a delay of game technical here? If not, this would remove the chance to tie with a tip in.

[JasonEvans]

In this situation, where a team is down by three but heading to the line to make the first and then intentionally miss the second, I've always wondered why the defensive team (ie the team that is ahead) doesn't just repeatedly incur lane violations on the second free throw until the shooter accidentally makes. Maybe the refs call a delay of game technical here? If not, this would remove the chance to tie with a tip in.

Wow... that is brilliant!

-JE

[throatybeard]

The thing that has always bothered me about this is a quixotic reservation, rather than a ruthless consideration about how to nail the game down.

I feel like the team up three should, as a matter of honor, have to play defense against the three. You could take this back to pre-87 too. The team up two should have to defend against the FG instead of hitting someone. Hitting someone on the floor seems to me like the coward's way out.

[SCMatt33]

In this situation, where a team is down by three but heading to the line to make the first and then intentionally miss the second, I've always wondered why the defensive team (ie the team that is ahead) doesn't just repeatedly incur lane violations on the second free throw until the shooter accidentally makes. Maybe the refs call a delay of game technical here? If not, this would remove the chance to tie with a tip in.

They probably would call a delay of game, but the first offense is normally a warning. You could probably get away with it once or twice before getting that warning, though if that became common, I imagine refs would be given the freedom to forego that warning.

As for the Michigan-Wisconsin thing being discussed, I think Michigan made the right play by not fouling. Given that there is less than 3 seconds left, Wisconsin would have to put the ball up fairly quickly, so you wouldn't have the luxury of waiting until the very last second to foul. The foul would probably have to occur as either on the catch, or as the player starts to dribble. Best case scenario, you would leave the other team about a second, time for a catch and shoot. The foul however, would have allowed Wisconsin to inbound the ball from mid-court. We've seen teams over the years call a timeout to essentially get the same situation. For Duke fan, think Gene Banks against UNC. If I were a coach, I'd take my chances with a half court heave from a player falling towards the sidelines who had to turn and square up while in mid-air over a chance at a catch and shoot from 20-25 feet. On ESPN, they tried to compare Brust's shot to Evan Turner's from 2010 because they came from a similar location on the floor and they were both against Michigan. The big different was that Turner was dribbling towards the rim and had his body momentum in line with the shot. Brust did not, which makes that shot so much more amazing than other shots of similar distance (Think Turner or even Sean Dockery). Brust had to compensate for his momentum pushing the shot to the right.

Now, Wisconsin not using their fouls to give in a tie game to disrupt Michigan and force them to run a play on a shorter clock is a totally different story. Dan Dakich had an interesting conversation with Bo Ryan about this in the post game, and I think he was absolutely right. Wisconsin had no excuse for not fouling.

[nyesq83]

Posted on: 7:40 am, January 25, 2013, by Scott Wise, updated on: 11:48am, January 25, 2013

http://wtvr.com/2013/01/25/shaka-smart-vcu-ur-post-game/


With the Spiders down three, Brothers hit a three-pointer to tie the game with 1.5 seconds remaining. Some coaches choose to foul the other team when up by three points late in a game, forcing their opponent to shoot foul shots instead of giving them a chance to make a three pointer. Smart explained his decision not to foul in that situation.

“We have kind of a rule on that. When it’s under a certain amount of time, we’ll foul on purpose,” he said. “But there was 12 seconds, I believe, on the clock and the ref asked me ‘do you guys want to foul?’ because that’s the age old debate. Yes, if it would have been less time, we would have fouled, but again the way Richmond was chopping that lead down very quickly and if you foul with 12 seconds, now they’re going to foul you and we had missed some free throws. It’s a percentage game. Obviously in retrospect, we should have fouled but we didn’t.”

[-bdbd]

I would be very interested in seeing a different set of numbers-- rather than with 12 seconds left, what is the result if you foul with less than 4 seconds left?

I have always felt that the foul when there are only 3 or 4 seconds left (or less) makes sense. It means that even if the other team makes their FTs and then fouls you, there is little time left for them to get off a decent shot. 12 seconds or so is a lot of time for stuff to happen. As there is less and less time left, I think fouling makes more sense.

I would much much rather put my team at the line up 1 with 2 or 3 seconds left versus the other team having the ball, down 3, and having a chance to get off a good shot because there are 10 or so seconds left on the clock. Oh, and the other thing is that if there is less than 4 seconds left and I am up 1 or perhaps even up 2, I am missing the FT every time rather than letting them inbound the ball and get to advance it up the court with no time coming off the clock (this only applies is the opposing team is out of timeouts, as a timeout would allow them to inbound the ball and takes away the advantage of missing the FT).

-Jason "of course, it should be noted that I am not a coach and the above opinions might be laughed at by someone paid to coach basketball" Evans

That seems to track to the opinion I've seen credited to top-level coaches the most often. IOW, the answer hinges on exactly how much time remains and if you can be sure to foul him w/o him then "heaving" a wild thirty foot shot in order to get three free-throws.
I recall more than one coach responding that, under five seconds, he'd foul, as long as we're sure only to give them 2 FT's (i.e. foul them on the dribble).

The data linked above from KenPom is really interesting, but I think it's misleading. Take the interval down to 5 or 4 seconds and I suspent the data tells a different story.

[Olympic Fan]

Chalk one up for the not-to-foul side ... NC State up 3, fouls Erick Green with 5.2 seconds left to prevent a 3.

Green hits the first, has a great miss on the second -- bouncing it right, where Jerrell Eddie is flying in for the follow.

Overtime.

[Reilly]

... Obviously in retrospect, we should have fouled but we didn’t.”

Shaka had me until his final line. It *is* a percentage game. All you can do is play the percentages. He valued matters as saying, don't foul. So, don't foul. You win some, you lose some. in other words, in retrospect, you should *not* have fouled, b/c that is what you thought gave you the best path to victory.

[awhom111]

Is Real Madrid predisposed to be in this situation or something. Today they were down 3 and fouled by Zalgiris Kaunas. Sergio Rodriguez made the first and intentionally missed the second. Nikola Mirotic (who is now probably the player not yet in the NBA that I most want to see in it) grabbed the rebound and was fouled on his attempt. He knocked down two free throws and they won in overtime.

[gus]

Well, I guess we have another data point favoring "not".

[Tripping William]

What is the statistical probability of what happened in Richmond v. Charlotte today? Inquiring minds & all ..... :)

[Bluedog]

Well, I guess we have another data point favoring "not".

I think the "not" refers to don't get a technical foul on a made free throw.... ;)

[davekay1971]

I think the "not" refers to don't get a technical foul on a made free throw.... ;)

And try not to have your coach go postal.

[JasonEvans]

And try not to have your coach go postal.

And hope that your game is being refereed by guys qualified to do at least junior high basketball.

-Jason "the FT tech was one thing, but giving the player 3-shots for that silly halfcourt heave was just too much" Evans

[FerryFor50]

I'm still not clear how the push on the rebound attempt was a technical. He fouled him, yes. But the guy flopped. A lot.

That probably set the whole meltdown in motion...

[Tripping William]

Thought this thread might be worth bumping, even following a couple years of dormancy, given K's strategic decisions (plural!) late in the game last night in Tally. Has anyone heard him elaborate on his thinking?

[UrinalCake]

The problem with that type of retroactive statistical analysis is that is assumes that all other factors are equal and that the coaches randomly choose whether or not to foul. In reality, there are a number of factors that affect the coach's decision and therefore the percentages are biased. Is the ball handler a good free throw shooter? Are we in the bonus or the one-and-one? Are we at home, where we'd presumably have an advantage in overtime? Has the other team's best player fouled out, which would again make us lean towards playing for OT? Again, so many things to consider, so you can't really have a hard and fast rule.

Personally I hate the idea of fouling. You run the risk of "giving" the other team the tie without them having to earn it. You stop the clock, which is the last thing you want to do, and run the risk of them hitting the first free throw and then grabbing a rebound on the second, or getting s foul call in the scrum for the missed free throw. Finally, they could hit both free throws and then you could have trouble inbounding the ball, or you could turn it over immediately after getting it in.
In short, fouling gives themlots of ways to win. Playing it out means they have to hit a low percentage three, and even then the worst that happens is overtime.

[peterjswift]

The problem with that type of retroactive statistical analysis is that is assumes that all other factors are equal and that the coaches randomly choose whether or not to foul. In reality, there are a number of factors that affect the coach's decision and therefore the percentages are biased. Is the ball handler a good free throw shooter? Are we in the bonus or the one-and-one? Are we at home, where we'd presumably have an advantage in overtime? Has the other team's best player fouled out, which would again make us lean towards playing for OT? Again, so many things to consider, so you can't really have a hard and fast rule.

Personally I hate the idea of fouling. You run the risk of "giving" the other team the tie without them having to earn it. You stop the clock, which is the last thing you want to do, and run the risk of them hitting the first free throw and then grabbing a rebound on the second, or getting s foul call in the scrum for the missed free throw. Finally, they could hit both free throws and then you could have trouble inbounding the ball, or you could turn it over immediately after getting it in.
In short, fouling gives themlots of ways to win. Playing it out means they have to hit a low percentage three, and even then the worst that happens is overtime.

This is how I've always felt about it. With the decision not to foul, there is pretty much a 0% chance of losing in regulation. As soon as you decide to foul, suddenly a chance exists (and it may be extraordinarily small) to lose in regulation.

I agree that there are a lot of other variables to consider (maybe all of your good players have fouled out and the thought of overtime might as well be a loss?), but I generally like eliminating the possibility of a regulation loss...I'd rather roll the dice, defend, and in the worst case scenario - play it out in OT.

[Matches]

I've always preferred that the team in the lead play straight-up defense. If the trailing team steps up and makes a big shot, good on them. But make them make a play.

With that said, as someone noted upthread, if the leading team has fouls to give, no reason not to give them.

[Tripping William]

BTTT. To foul

[NSDukeFan]

BTTT. To foul

Have to agree with you right now. Yes.

[Newton_14]

Have to agree with you right now. Yes.

It worked, but I did not like the decision to foul tonight, especially with time and situation. Britt was dead, with the ball, just inside the line and wrapped up by Matt Jones, and no one open near him behind the line. Britt would have been forced to shoot a desperation 3 over Jones at that point as he had no time to pass. I like my chances there.

That said, obviously the instructions from the bench were to foul, and there is no way to know going in, you are going to have them in a tough situation like Britt was in.

Interesting, for years K chose to never foul, and this year he has chosen to foul. It has worked every time so far.

[UrinalCake]

I didn't like the call either, for the reason that UNC had already rebounded their own missed free throw on several occasions during the game. Fortunately, Matt and Justise were there to secure the board this time.

[pfrduke]

Agreed. UNC's offensive rebounding >>> UNC's three point shooting. It worked (barely - that was not an easy rebound to secure) but I'm not sure it was the right approach.

[jv001]

Agreed. UNC's offensive rebounding >>> UNC's three point shooting. It worked (barely - that was not an easy rebound to secure) but I'm not sure it was the right approach.

I was worried that uncheat would go over our backs and bat the ball out to a 3 point shooter that had not hit one all game and lady luck would give the cheaters a win. But The Good Lord took care of that and we came away a winner. GoDuke!

[HaveFunExpectToWin]

In the post game show on the ACC Digital Network, Seth Davis asked Coach Capel why they had gone to the foul strategy in these situations. Right as he was about to give some insight into the change, the feed cuts off. Argh! http://www.theacc.com/page/postgame-live

[captmojo]

...for the last two minutes on the clock, 2nd half and overtime only. Make any common foul, committed outside of the 3-point line, lending 3 free-throws to the fouled team if that team is established as being eligible within the 'bonus' consideration. The fouled team may use any player of their own choosing, whether on the scorer's book as 'checked-in' or not, to complete the three shots.

I believe this rule might discourage this intentionally unintentional foul.
A side effect might be that the trailing team with possession, would stay outside the 3-point arc.

[dukefan1980]

To me it all depends on the opponent that you are facing. I was not a big fan of the foul last night. Carolina has only one good 3pt shooter and he was 2-11 last night. However, they have great offensive rebounders that could have easily gotten that rebound and tied the game. I think that the odds of them tying the game with a 3 pointer were far less than them getting the rebound and forcing double overtime. Luckily, it worked out in our favor although it made my heart stopped for a minute. I guess there's a reason that Coach K has 1,000+ victories as a college coach and I have all of 0 wins.

[Tripping William]

Having now just watched K's post-game press conference last night, he mentioned, independently and not in response to a question from the media (IIRC), that he was very pleased with how the team played the last five seconds of overtime. He mentioned as well that they had employed this strategy down at Florida St. Clearly a considered decision (all three times), but I would be fascinated to hear him elaborate on his thinking about the subject.

What K did not say (but what I think Dean Smith would have said, if the roles been reversed) is that his team play six, maybe even six-and-a-half, seconds of great defense before fouling Nate Britt intentionally. :)

[94duke]

Fouling just cost VCU the game against Richmond. End of the 1st OT and up 3, VCU fouls Richmond in the closing seconds. UR makes the first FT and intentionally misses the second. VCU can't grab the rebound, and they tip it out of bounds. Richmond inbounds under their own basket and scores a 2 to force 2OT. Richmond barely won in 2OT, but VCU should have won in OT.

Richmond did the same at the end of 2OT. On the rebound VCU forced a jump ball and retained possession. So fouling didn't work here either. Luckily for UR, VCU turned the ball over, so it didn't cost them the game.

[uh_no]

Fouling just cost VCU the game against Richmond. End of the 1st OT and up 3, VCU fouls Richmond in the closing seconds. UR makes the first FT and intentionally misses the second. VCU can't grab the rebound, and they tip it out of bounds. Richmond inbounds under their own basket and scores a 2 to force 2OT. Richmond barely won in 2OT, but VCU should have won in OT.

Richmond did the same at the end of 2OT. On the rebound VCU forced a jump ball and retained possession. So fouling didn't work here either. Luckily for UR, VCU turned the ball over, so it didn't cost them the game.

it doesn't work more than people think. Kenpom has the number at like 50/50 or something in all cases, though i'm guessing the numbers can be skewed depending on the situation (in bound location, time left, rebounding ability, free throw defense)

[Bluedog]

Fouling just cost VCU the game against Richmond. End of the 1st OT and up 3, VCU fouls Richmond in the closing seconds. UR makes the first FT and intentionally misses the second. VCU can't grab the rebound, and they tip it out of bounds. Richmond inbounds under their own basket and scores a 2 to force 2OT. Richmond barely won in 2OT, but VCU should have won in OT.

Richmond did the same at the end of 2OT. On the rebound VCU forced a jump ball and retained possession. So fouling didn't work here either. Luckily for UR, VCU turned the ball over, so it didn't cost them the game.

And NOT fouling nearly cost Richmond the game earlier. Both situations happened in the same game! At the end of regulation, with <5 seconds remaining, Richmond has an opportunity to foul up three but gave VCU a look at a 3 pointer -- and they nailed it and sent the game to OT. So, the opposite strategies BOTH led to a tie and another OT. Can't really say there was another datapoint that showed one strategy is better than the other. If anything, the first thing that "failed" was not fouling...

[94duke]

And NOT fouling nearly cost Richmond the game earlier. Both situations happened in the same game! At the end of regulation, with <5 seconds remaining, Richmond has an opportunity to foul up three but gave VCU a look at a 3 pointer -- and they nailed it and sent the game to OT. So, the opposite strategies BOTH led to a tie and another OT. Can't really say there was another datapoint that showed one strategy is better than the other. If anything, the first thing that "failed" was not fouling...

I don't know. A step back 3FG from 26 feet is a pretty tough shot. It's not like they gave him a great shot. UR still almost won in regulation after that at the buzzer. Their last shot bounced high off the rim three times. I can't believe that one didn't fall in.

[Bluedog]

I don't know. A step back 3FG from 26 feet is a pretty tough shot. It's not like they gave him a great shot. UR still almost won in regulation after that at the buzzer. Their last shot bounced high off the rim three times. I can't believe that one didn't fall in.

Very true, it was a definitely a tough shot to hit, but they hit it...and they wouldn't have had that opportunity at all if Richmond had fouled. (Obviously, no way of knowing what would have happened in that case.) Yeah, that shot at the buzzer was crazy -- thought it was going in twice!

[captmojo]

As long as there is an opportunity to score 3 points, within the standard play on the floor, any violation made that denies the opportunity for that chance, is the only fair way to adjust the rules to conformity.
This rule, and ploy, needs change.

I'm not calling anyone unfair for strategies that use the current rules.

[cato]

As long as there is an opportunity to score 3 points, within the standard play on the floor, any violation made that denies the opportunity for that chance, is the only fair way to adjust the rules to conformity.
This rule, and ploy, needs change.

What violation are you talking about that would deny the opportunity? Sticking someone on the line does not deny the opportunity. The team shooting free throws can score anywhere from 0-5 points.

[SCMatt33]

As long as there is an opportunity to score 3 points, within the standard play on the floor, any violation made that denies the opportunity for that chance, is the only fair way to adjust the rules to conformity.
This rule, and ploy, needs change.

I'm not calling anyone unfair for strategies that use the current rules.

Couldn't you apply that same logic to teams fouling when down. Within the "standard play on the floor," the offense can use 35 seconds of game time to take a shot. Fouling on purpose is a violation that denies me that opportunity. How would that be any different?

[Tripping William]

And NOT fouling nearly cost Richmond the game earlier. Both situations happened in the same game! At the end of regulation, with <5 seconds remaining, Richmond has an opportunity to foul up three but gave VCU a look at a 3 pointer -- and they nailed it and sent the game to OT. So, the opposite strategies BOTH led to a tie and another OT. Can't really say there was another datapoint that showed one strategy is better than the other. If anything, the first thing that "failed" was not fouling...

In light of events the past two years involving their basketball team & the subject-matter of this thread, I hereby suggest we re-name the thread to "The Richmond Spiders Honorary To- Foul-or-Not-To-Foul Debate Thread."

[captmojo]

What violation are you talking about that would deny the opportunity? Sticking someone on the line does not deny the opportunity. The team shooting free throws can score anywhere from 0-5 points.

That 4-5 points doesn't really happen on the same play, does it? At least, not simply from the single foul itself. Other factors would have to be in place, to fill an equation that results in 4 or 5 points. The standard and typical successful offensive play without a foul, yields the chance to score a maximum of 3 points.

What I'm suggesting is the better chance to establish the game winner, by their floor play, rather than at the free-throw line.

[uh_no]

by their floor play, rather than at the free-throw line.

Because it's part of the game. Why should a pitcher be able to intentionally walk a player? Why should a soccer player be able to pull down a guy on a break away, forcing a free kick?

What do you want them to do when there's a foul? not call it? give away free points?

[captmojo]

Couldn't you apply that same logic to teams fouling when down. Within the "standard play on the floor," the offense can use 35 seconds of game time to take a shot. Fouling on purpose is a violation that denies me that opportunity. How would that be any different?

Are you implying that, like in football, there should be a situation where a violation would create an automatic time run-off? (as in the late game offensive penalty)
Since there is no same-time imperative for an offense to take a shot each possession, my feeling would be, no. There is only the same ruling for each team, for a maximum amount of time to attempt, to at least the point of making contact with the rim, within the 35 second time frame.

'Intentional Fouls' are too vague in determination. We all understand the unintentional-intentional. But try as I might, I can't read minds, only a play on the ball.

[SCMatt33]

Are you implying that, like in football, there should be a situation where a violation would create an automatic time run-off? (as in the late game offensive penalty)
Since there is no same-time imperative for an offense to take a shot each possession, my feeling would be, no. There is only the same ruling for each team, for a maximum amount of time to attempt, to at least the point of making contact with the rim, within the 35 second time frame.

'Intentional Fouls' are too vague in determination. We all understand the unintentional-intentional. But try as I might, I can't read minds, only a play on the ball.

I'm not implying that at all. I was simply juxtaposing that against your original premise, which is that the game should be decided by play on the floor, not fouling strategy. How could you punish fouling for a team whose in the lead, while not punishing it for a team that's behind. I think in both cases, teams should be allowed to foul, as fouling is part of the game, and comes with a certain cost. In the case of fouling up 3, you are putting the game in the hands of your defensive rebounding vs putting it in the hands of a 3 point shot. You essentially increase your odds of winning in regulation, but also bring the insta-loss into play. I wouldn't want to try to legislate situational fouling out of the game at all, because as you mentioned, it's too much of a judgment call for the refs. Your original idea puts the refs in a very awkward position when a guy is trying the fight over the top of a ball screen to deny a 3 pointer (a fairly common occurrence) at the end of a game. It's a legitimate attempt to deny an open 3 point look, but if the guy was overzealous and committed a reaching foul, the other team could tie the game off of it. That seems very much out of place to me, and the idea of changing foul penalties depending on the game situation just doesn't seem right

[captmojo]

I'm not implying that at all. I was simply juxtaposing that against your original premise, which is that the game should be decided by play on the floor, not fouling strategy. How could you punish fouling for a team whose in the lead, while not punishing it for a team that's behind. I think in both cases, teams should be allowed to foul, as fouling is part of the game, and comes with a certain cost. In the case of fouling up 3, you are putting the game in the hands of your defensive rebounding vs putting it in the hands of a 3 point shot. You essentially increase your odds of winning in regulation, but also bring the insta-loss into play. I wouldn't want to try to legislate situational fouling out of the game at all, because as you mentioned, it's too much of a judgment call for the refs. Your original idea puts the refs in a very awkward position when a guy is trying the fight over the top of a ball screen to deny a 3 pointer (a fairly common occurrence) at the end of a game. It's a legitimate attempt to deny an open 3 point look, but if the guy was overzealous and committed a reaching foul, the other team could tie the game off of it. That seems very much out of place to me, and the idea of changing foul penalties depending on the game situation just doesn't seem right

I know what you mean about the game situation, changing the rules with respect to the foul in the last two minutes. I have always frowned when I've heard announcers say things like, "You can't make that call at this point in the game." My belief is that if it's a foul in the first minute, then it's a foul during the last one too. However, I'm not talking about different rules per team. They would both bear the same responsibility, assuming they had achieved the status of being in the bonus free-throw stage.

The foul should not be intended to be used as a positive form of strategy. Of course it still would be. Even with the chance of taking 3 shots, there would always be favorites from the opponent that you might prefer to put on the line.

[-jk]

This is where - in the rules change thread - I'd suggested giving a team in the bonus the option of shots or the ball out of bounds with a fresh clock. Good shooter gets fouled, take the shots. Bad shooter gets fouled, run your best set play. And coaches would really work on those set plays!

-jk

[Wander]

This is where - in the rules change thread - I'd suggested giving a team in the bonus the option of shots or the ball out of bounds with a fresh clock. Good shooter gets fouled, take the shots. Bad shooter gets fouled, run your best set play. And coaches would really work on those set plays!

-jk

So we get to watch 12 inbounds plays in a row? No thanks.

[-jk]

So we get to watch 12 inbounds plays in a row? No thanks.

It offers an additional option. There's nothing in it to keep the fouled team from doing exactly what they're required to do now.

The change gives the fouled team another option. This should make the fouling team think a bit more before fouling.

-jk

[uh_no]

It offers an additional option. There's nothing in it to keep the fouled team from doing exactly what they're required to do now.

The change gives the fouled team another option. This should make the fouling team think a bit more before fouling.

-jk

This has been suggested several times here...I don't understand why the other team wouldn't just keep fouling until they happened to foul a not-terrible shooter....plus with the relatively high difficulty of inbounding the ball in those situations, I'm not sure many teams would take the risk unless the shooter was under 60 percent....and then again, the team would just foul again.

Lets save ourselves 10 inbounds plays in a row and just say the fouled team gets to choose the shooter.

[SCMatt33]

Lets save ourselves 10 inbounds plays in a row and just say the fouled team gets to choose the shooter.

I think it's a little much to let the team choose a shooter. If you're bad a free throws, that your problem. There shouldn't be what essentially amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for being bad at the line. That goes for having the option to inbounds as well. If you're bad at free throws, and the coach puts you on the floor, and the team passes you the ball, and you get fouled, you should have to go to the line. The only exception I would have, is when a guy is fouled without the ball. I find it ridiculous that there is no penalty for fouling a guy before the inbounds pass. In that case, I would let the team choose its shooter among the players on the court.

[uh_no]

I think it's a little much to let the team choose a shooter. If you're bad a free throws, that your problem. There shouldn't be what essentially amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for being bad at the line. That goes for having the option to inbounds as well. If you're bad at free throws, and the coach puts you on the floor, and the team passes you the ball, and you get fouled, you should have to go to the line.

I'm not advocating for any such scheme, only pointing out the logical outcome of "allowing teams that were fouled the option to inbound the ball instead"

[captmojo]

...and keeping the opportunity for the maximum score (3 points) on a typical offensive play. Not just a simple denial.

[uh_no]

...and keeping the opportunity for the maximum score (3 points) on a typical offensive play. Not just a simple denial.

you mean like intentionally walking a big hitter to limit him to first base instead of a home run?

[captmojo]

you mean like intentionally walking a big hitter to limit him to first base instead of a home run?

1)Apples/oranges
2)No, I mean hitting the rim with a basketball bat.
3)Sorry. I am a wanker.
4)Safe passage to first rather than get a run-scoring hit still requires four thrown pitches. (as yet, and I hope they don't change it)
5)It all goes to the first reply I just gave. #1
6)In the game of basketball, I don't think teams should manipulate their own penalties for their betterment. An added benefit of the chances that the game will be decided by their play on the floor as opposed to the free-throw line.
7)There is no seventh point.

[Newton_14]

it doesn't work more than people think. Kenpom has the number at like 50/50 or something in all cases, though i'm guessing the numbers can be skewed depending on the situation (in bound location, time left, rebounding ability, free throw defense)

I am torn. (Imagine that). I grew up firmly believing that the proper move was to foul due 4 hard things needing to happen in that scenario (1. Must make first FT, 2. Must miss 2nd Free Throw 3. Must secure rebound 4. Must score on putback) vs 1 hard thing happening if choosing not to foul (1. Make a 3 pointer).

Now though I find myself screaming "don't foul!! It is odd that K has changed his process. He used to never foul. We would occasionally give up the tying 3, but not terribly often. The thing that fouling does bring into play though, is it's the only way you can lose in regulation. Unc lost to GaTech like that waayyy back in the day. They fouled up 3 with little time on the clock. Gatech makes first free throw, misses 2nd, kicks rebound out to Dennis Scott who nails the 3 pointer to win. Dean was beside himself. 4 points in less than 3 seconds

[House G]

Tom Izzo did not foul last night with a three point lead and lost in overtime. He said after the game: "It's a choice I made and a choice I'll have to live with. If guys would do their damned job and do what they're supposed to do, we wouldn't have been in that position anyway."
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400595538

[-jk]

Tom Izzo did not foul last night with a three point lead and lost in overtime. He said after the game: "It's a choice I made and a choice I'll have to live with. If guys would do their damned job and do what they're supposed to do, we wouldn't have been in that position anyway."
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=400595538

Ouch... Threw the team under the bus?

-jk

[Tripping William]

It is odd that K has changed his process. He used to never foul.

He never used to play zone, either. I'm okay with both changes, though.

[94duke]

I think it's a little much to let the team choose a shooter. If you're bad a free throws, that your problem. There shouldn't be what essentially amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for being bad at the line. That goes for having the option to inbounds as well. If you're bad at free throws, and the coach puts you on the floor, and the team passes you the ball, and you get fouled, you should have to go to the line. The only exception I would have, is when a guy is fouled without the ball. I find it ridiculous that there is no penalty for fouling a guy before the inbounds pass. In that case, I would let the team choose its shooter among the players on the court.

Here's a thought. Currently, starting with the 7th foul, teams shoot 1-and-1. Starting with the 10th foul, teams shoot 2. What if starting with the 13th foul, teams shoot 2-and-1? This way you get an extra free throw but only if you make the 2nd.

[arnie]

Here's a thought. Currently, starting with the 7th foul, teams shoot 1-and-1. Starting with the 10th foul, teams shoot 2. What if starting with the 13th foul, teams shoot 2-and-1? This way you get an extra free throw but only if you make the 2nd.

The NBA had a 3 to make 2 free throw rule in the 60s/70s. Remember Wilt using all his 3rd attempts to try to make 1 or 2.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Here's an example of getting it totally wrong... but winning. http://thebiglead.com/2015/03/07/michigan-states-inexplicable-late-game-blunders-caused-tom-izzo-to-lose-his-mind-fall-down/