happy for Butler, but the foul rule has to change

BSpringsteen

BSpringsteen

Well-Known Member
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.
 
no way. Thats where strategy comes in. You see the scenario where they have to miss the second free throw bounce the other way sometimes as well. Its not like the other team didnt have a chance and to change a rule just to appease to the fans who want to see a buzzer beater is absurd. What happens if a foul is committed when someone is actually going after the ball or miss timed his jump on the passing lane and runs into the player and it looks intentional when in fact he was just going for the ball? Too many things could go wrong with this and the game would have been a totally different game if all around Michigan State wasn't horrid from the free throw line in the second half.
 
BSpringsteen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's been this way for as long as the game has been around. There were a few teams that I saw who employed that strategy just in this tournament. It even backfired once, when a player was fouled twice on a play. The first wasn't called, and the second (on a 3-point shot) was.

Teams do what they have to to win the game. It's no different than teams fouling late to stop the clock and play catch up. I don't like to watch that because it's usually ineffective. But it works very well when the team in the lead does it.

You want the classic ending? Tell Michigan State players to grow a pair and hit a 3, rather than let Butler play that kind of game. UNI had a 1-point lead at the time, but that worked for Ali Farokhmanesh.
 
BSpringsteen said:
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.
Click to expand...

as said above...you cant have it both ways....should it be a flagrant foul when a team is trailing and fouls every possession on purpose to stop the clock to extend the game.
 
I hate it when teams intentionally foul toward the end of a game -- regardless of whether they're winning or losing. When a player intentionally fouls another player, the referees should call an intentional foul. In nearly all instances of an intentional foul, a personal foul is called (which basically rewards the team committing a foul).
 
I hate it when obvious fouls that get know ball in the last minute. Haywood didn't get any ball on that last shot by morgan. Nailed his arm and morgan wasn't able to get the ball to the hoop because of it. Morgan might have missed and butler still may have won but the official is suppose to call the foul when it affects the play.
 
There are 'intentional' fouls that take place throughout the entire game... fast break lay-up attempts (no easy buckets), steals then a tug of the jersey, and the end of game situation. I don't feel that the intentional foul should be called unless there is no attempt to go after the ball what-so-ever.

I don't remember the 'down three/foul' situation coming up at all a few years ago. Does anyone know when that became the popular way to stop the tie from happening?
 
Mich St had 39 min and 54 seconds to keep that from happening. That is excellent coaching. He'll be at I State in two years :)
 
HawkI101 said:
I hate it when obvious fouls that get know ball in the last minute. Haywood didn't get any ball on that last shot by morgan. Nailed his arm and morgan wasn't able to get the ball to the hoop because of it. Morgan might have missed and butler still may have won but the official is suppose to call the foul when it affects the play.
Click to expand...


Did you miss the obvious foul that didn't get called on Morgan when Howard spun to go up for the shot.
 
BSpringsteen said:
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.
Click to expand...

You should be surprised that Butler actually did foul in that situation, as opposed to being upset about it. Fouling with a three point lead is a known strategy, and one that is widely accepted in coaching circles, but no one ever does it. Hell, not fouling at the end of the Michigan cost Iowa that game.
 
ShadasRevenge said:
You should be surprised that Butler actually did foul in that situation, as opposed to being upset about it. Fouling with a three point lead is a known strategy, and one that is widely accepted in coaching circles, but no one ever does it. Hell, not fouling at the end of the Michigan cost Iowa that game.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HawKCP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HawKCP said:
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.
Click to expand...

The percentages say to foul....neither choice is going to work 100% of the time.
 
ShadasRevenge said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait they had to 3.) Miss the first shot after the rebound???

Would it not have counted had they made that first one?

Did they even 4.) Miss the second shot??? I thought the tip in came off of the first one.

There is something to be said for both sides...because when you foul in that scenario you are leaving yourself susceptible to losing in regulation...because keep in mind that off of that rebound Kentucky could have lined up a 3 pointer to win the game.

Then again...I prefer the style of wrestling that Tom Brands and Dan Gable promote to the style that almost everyone else employs...a former wrestler told me that Gable used to get ****** off at his wrestlers when they went out of bounds even if they were in a compromising position he instructed them to work toward the center. I think it's all about the mentality that the coach is breeding more so than the strategy that he's employing...at least with the really good coaches who are able to look at the big picture rather than thinking that their job is all about calling timeouts...making substitutions and drawing up plays.

Had Gable been a basketball coach...I'm pretty sure he'd have his guys play defense when up 3 in the closing seconds...but then again he's a wrestling coach so what the hell does he know about basketball.
 
HawKCP said:
Wait they had to 3.) Miss the first shot after the rebound???

Would it not have counted had they made that first one?

Did they even 4.) Miss the second shot??? I thought the tip in came off of the first one.

There is something to be said for both sides...because when you foul in that scenario you are leaving yourself susceptible to losing in regulation...because keep in mind that off of that rebound Kentucky could have lined up a 3 pointer to win the game.

Then again...I prefer the style of wrestling that Tom Brands and Dan Gable promote to the style that almost everyone else employs...a former wrestler told me that Gable used to get ****** off at his wrestlers when they went out of bounds even if they were in a compromising position he instructed them to work toward the center. I think it's all about the mentality that the coach is breeding more so than the strategy that he's employing...at least with the really good coaches who are able to look at the big picture rather than thinking that their job is all about calling timeouts...making substitutions and drawing up plays.

Had Gable been a basketball coach...I'm pretty sure he'd have his guys play defense when up 3 in the closing seconds...but then again he's a wrestling coach so what the hell does he know about basketball.
Click to expand...

If I remember it right, Kentucky missed a three that would have won it, got that rebound, missed a chippie, got that rebound, and then tipped it in at the buzzer.
 
BSpringsteen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this logic. Why penalize the team that did enough to win and why reward the team that didn't?
 
ShadasRevenge said:
If I remember it right, Kentucky missed a three that would have won it, got that rebound, missed a chippie, got that rebound, and then tipped it in at the buzzer.
Click to expand...

I think you misremember...not that it matters. The way I remember is was that John Wall got the rebound and was heading for the 3 point line...pulled up short of it and threw it at the hoop and air balled it short...Cousins grabbed it out of the air and laid it in...again...not that it matters. The real point that I was trying to make is that many people think that it's bad coaching to not foul in that scenario...but I think many if not most of the greatest coaches would have their teams play defense in that scenario. I have read one of the books on John Wooden that gets into the way he thinks about coaching and I am fairly certain that he would have his team play defense.

It's just like how it has become accepted logic that a coach must call a timeout to stop a team that is on a run...John Wooden has stated that he would never do that because if his team can't compose themselves and start playing better without a timeout...they have bigger problems than a 10-0 run. I don't believe Bob Knight would call timeouts in that scenario either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top