happy for Butler, but the foul rule has to change

[ShadasRevenge]

A simple...you were right HawKCP would have sufficed.

But I don't agree with you. Each strategy has it's advantages and drawbacks. Also, Bob Huggins' two daughters are HOT.

Haddy is sitting at the press table, third row, third from the right, next to the WVU bench.

 

[woodyk1]

Possibly...but then again fouling in that scenario also cost Miss St the SEC Tournament Championship against Kentucky. Kentucky player missed the second free throw and they got the board and put it in to tie and send it to overtime. I also remember watching a really good game earlier in the NCAA tournament this year but can't remember the teams...it went 2 or 3 overtimes and one of the teams fouled in that scenario and the foul ended up being committed during a 3 point attempt...kid got 3 free throws and sent it to overtime.

They are both strategies that sometimes pay off and sometimes don't...personally if I were a coach I would have my team play defense...which should be easier to do given that you know they have to get a 3.

The game you were trying to remember was Xavier - Kansas State. KSU was up 3 and tried to foul but the ref didn't call the initial foul and then did call the foul when the Xavier player was shooting the 3. That gave Xavier 3 FTs to tie the game and they did.

I don't understand why the defense just doesn't jump in front of the offensive player when they are dribbling up the floor. If they get called for the block, that's OK, because they wanted the foul. If they get the charge, even better.

That said, I think the team ahead by 3 should foul in every case at the end of the game. It is the best percentage play, IMO. As SR said, the team has to do 4 or 5 things correctly just to tie the game.

 

[DFaceHawkeye]

The game you were trying to remember was Xavier - Kansas State. KSU was up 3 and tried to foul but the ref didn't call the initial foul and then did call the foul when the Xavier player was shooting the 3. That gave Xavier 3 FTs to tie the game and they did.

I don't understand why the defense just doesn't jump in front of the offensive player when they are dribbling up the floor. If they get called for the block, that's OK, because they wanted the foul. If they get the charge, even better.

That said, I think the team ahead by 3 should foul in every case at the end of the game. It is the best percentage play, IMO. As SR said, the team has to do 4 or 5 things correctly just to tie the game.

Still depends on how much time is left. Most coaches won't tell the guys to foul until there's around 5 secs left, and then it's situational because you don't want to foul a guy on a three point shot. Also, if you have the defensive ability to funnel the play away from the best percentage shooters, I'd take my chances. However, that's a big if.

 

[ShadasRevenge]

Still depends on how much time is left. Most coaches won't tell the guys to foul until there's around 5 secs left, and then it's situational because you don't want to foul a guy on a three point shot. Also, if you have the defensive ability to funnel the play away from the best percentage shooters, I'd take my chances. However, that's a big if.

Or if the the team with the lead has fouls to give.

 

[IAJay]

Yes, but Kentucky had to 1.) Miss the freebie, 2. Get the rebound, 3. Miss the first shot after the rebound, 4. Miss the second shot, and then 5., tip it in at the buzzer.

I'd rather force a team to do 3 or 4 (or in that case, five) things in a row as opposed to leaving someone wide open for a three to tie it.

This is the first time we have ever agreed on something.

 

[hawkeyecub]

While I am happy for Butler being Cindarella, I think it is total BS that you can foul to win.

I think they need to change the rule that if a foul in that situation at the end of the game is a flagrant foul - 2 shots and the ball.

I just totally hate that a potential classic ending was ruined by what I view as basically a loophole.

This is one of the stranger rants I've ever heard.

It's not "fouling to win" nor is it a loophole. It's been happening for years and analysts/coaches have been saying teams should do it more often for the last 15+ years. They earned the lead, they earned the right to defend it however they want.

As far as changing it to 2 shots and the ball? Think that one through for a minute. What if they're not trying to foul but pick one up because they're playing tight d or going for a steal? You want to completely penalize a team with the lead and handcuff them defensively.

 

[woodyk1]

Still depends on how much time is left. Most coaches won't tell the guys to foul until there's around 5 secs left, and then it's situational because you don't want to foul a guy on a three point shot. Also, if you have the defensive ability to funnel the play away from the best percentage shooters, I'd take my chances. However, that's a big if.

I agree that the time left in the game is a factor. Also, fouls to give is a factor. Butler made the right play yesterday given the time and foul factors.

 

[GodGodGodBathia]

No. It doesn't have to change. I rarely see teams do it. Look at what happened when Kansas State tried to do it this year. Put a Xavier player on the line for 3 shots and he sunk them all. There's risk that comes with it as well.

 

[EastLosRandy]

I agree with the idea that Butler earned the right to defend their lead with whatever strategy they felt was best within the rules. Giving a foul to force the other team to take two FTs when they need three points doesn't bother me.

What I really hate is when teams that are behind late start fouling every possession out of desperation. The strategy basically is: "you've played a better basketball game than we have, so we will prevent you from playing basketball by fouling you every time you touch the ball. Hopefully you will miss your free throws and let us back into a game we don't deserve to win."

I would be in favor of a rules change to discourage this ugly, boring strategy. Some kind of "two minute warning" deal. In the last two minutes of the game, maybe raise the "bonus" for 7 fouls to two shots and the "double bonus" for 10 fouls to two shots and the ball. This would vastly reduce the payoff of the fouling strategy.

 

[AZmess]

While I am happy for Butler being Cindarella, I think it is total BS that you can foul to win.

I think they need to change the rule that if a foul in that situation at the end of the game is a flagrant foul - 2 shots and the ball.

I just totally hate that a potential classic ending was ruined by what I view as basically a loophole.

Remember when the three point line didn't exist? If the other team can have a shot at a three pointer I see no reason why the other team can't foul to prevent it.

Oh, and tell me exactly how you are going to be able to differentiate between an intentional foul and a regular foul? Or will every foul under a minute be an intentional foul now?

 

[tweeterhawk]

Or will every foul under a minute be an intentional foul now?

Well, isn't it?

 

[gohawkz]

I like the rule

I like it as it is. It rewards smart coaches and players.

Also rewards free throw shooters. Nothing angers me more then someone who's got talent but doesn't care enough to become a good free throw shooter.

If you can't make a 15 foot shot with NOBODY guarding you, you're not good and deserve to lose. Sorry Shaq..

 

[hawkdrummer1]

They didn't "foul to win". They played 40 tough minutes of basketball and executed the strategy they needed at the end. It's a perfectly legitimate part of the game.

 

[AZmess]

Well, isn't it?

I'm talking EVERY foul. Because that's how you'd have to enforce it. Or would you then be requiring the officials to determine if the fouling team is just trying to play defense or not.