Fouling bad ft shooter away from ball

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by griblets

It's obvious you don't like the answers given. All who are not KU fans are providing unbiased feedback, and they all seem to be in agreement.

Maybe the KU player being fouled should spend more time practicing free throws. Becoming a better free throw shooter would be the best deterrent.

I am a KU fan and a basketball fan in general, and am far more interested in the answer because I assume it is more clear than the answer given thus far. Square it with the Seton Hall game in the Dance last year

https://www.sbnation.com/college-bas...desi-rodriguez

No question what happened...Late in close game, in transition defender pushes dribbler from the side with a force that is called regular foul 99 times out of 100, BUT the players feet INADVERTENTLY get caught up with each other such that the dribbler goes flying. Officials change it to an F1 after review, wrongfully in my opinion, and Collins confirms to the media afterwards that it was the right call because it wasn't a legitimate attempt to player the player or ball, and said "“When a player puts two hands on the back and doesn’t make any attempt to play the ball or the player, get in front of him, it’s an F1 foul"

My view is whether the conduct is 'legitimate' basketball. Bumping a cutter could be legitimate if the player is cutting towards the ball. But if a player is moving to set a ball screen and is getting forearmed and hipped off his stride, it is quite obvious that it is not basketball, it is conduct designed to get a foul call. Only 1 of those fouls in that video was arguably legit, and that was when the KU player was posting up and a wing player was looking to make an entry pass. The rest was crystal clear intentional and not legitimate.

I ask for opinion as to clarification as to when a pattern of this conduct would rise to an F1, because as I said, a grade schooler could pull it off. OU did it with 5 fouls and a scrub player and got away with it, 4 of them in just a couple of minutes, how many fouls with players deep from the bench before you rise to F1? Do you warn?

I don't know that it will continue with KU, as the player involved actually has very nice touch on his post game, particularly hooks, and I think he will improve. But it will be tested, and I don't think the rules are clear, at all. The word 'intentional' was taken out primarily to clarify that intent wasn't necessary for F1 in the initial craze of elbows to head. But I don't think it was meant to in any way back off the fact that conduct deemed intentional should be F1. Maybe I'm wrong, but the editorial language when the rule was changed simply referred to intent not being necessary. It's interesting, and I don't know that I've seen a team take advantage of the loophole to the extent that OU did last week.

No one has even attempted to address the issue of if the identical conduct was repeated by players at the end of the bench, at what point do you warn or F1? That no one will even throw out an opinion is testament to the grey area the question presents. My view is that at least 2, if not 3, of those fouls should be considered F1. The quality of the acting job shouldn't be protection, the legitimacy of the conduct given play and circumstance should govern.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by thedewed

But if a player is moving to set a ball screen and is getting forearmed and hipped off his stride, it is quite obvious that it is not basketball, it is conduct designed to get a foul call.

Or it is conduct to try to prevent a player from setting a ball screen.

Originally Posted by thedewed

No one has even attempted to address the issue of if the identical conduct was repeated by players at the end of the bench, at what point do you warn or F1?

Are you asking officials to evaluate where a player is on the team's depth chart, before judging an action on the floor?

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

Or it is conduct to try to prevent a player from setting a ball screen.



Are you asking officials to evaluate where a player is on the team's depth chart, before judging an action on the floor?

You do understand where all this could lead, it's nuts to not clarify before somebody really abuses it, perhaps in a tourney game. As you are presenting it, a team with a 50% FT shooter could, actually should if the idea is to maximize probability of winning, see 1/4 of their possessions with that guy at the FT line. If a team is average 1.2 points per possession, the math is quite tempting, particularly over the 1 and 1's each half. I have not seen a team try this other than OU, so if the window is open and NCAA admin of officials doesn't clarify, someone will push the envelope. I don't really care, just find it interesting.

but to answer your question I guess, no, you rarely if ever see a player trying to prevent another player from moving in open court to set a ball screen, and it is quite clear what the intent is here, particularly given the fact that the defender involved is off the end of the bench.

You position, I take it, is as long as it isn't a bear hug or 2 hand push, and as long as the fouled player isn't standing in the corner, it's not an F1? I'm trying to exercise common sense on 'intent', and yes, whether the player committing the repeated fouls is from the end of the bench is relevant to that issue.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen anyone associated with the KU program even hint that they should have been F1, that is not their style, I'm just curious whether actual D1 officials have been given any better guidance on how to assess or handle this situation if it comes up. Apparently the answer is no. I watch a lot of basketball and have never seen it off-ball like this. No need to foul the player with the ball late anymore, apparently, as long as you don't bear hug or push with your hands. I'm just trying to get it defined with a little more clarity. Surely it is an interesting question for people that officiate, and please don't tell me it's clear to anyone as to how to handle it? If so, answer, if that exact conduct happens on fouls 7-9 and a couple more in the first half with a player that isn't normally playing, and then again in the 2nd half for 5 fouls beginning with 7-9 and then a couple more, with another player that doesn't play other than those few minutes, are they all common fouls? In this case, the player that fouled out in 2 minutes got quite an ovation as he was ushered to the bench. No one in the place had any doubt what was going on. My question, could it happen with another 1,2,3 players? where is the line drawn? If there is no answer as of now, we'll probably have a better idea by the end of this season.

[sdoebler]

Originally Posted by thedewed

As you are presenting it, a team with a 50% FT shooter could, actually should if the idea is to maximize probability of winning, see 1/4 of their possessions with that guy at the FT line. If a team is average 1.2 points per possession, the math is quite tempting, particularly over the 1 and 1's each half.

Just for reference Kansas averages ~73 possessions per game. With the range being from Virginia at 63.4 to the top of ~85 possessions/game.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...sions-per-game

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by sdoebler

Just for reference Kansas averages ~73 possessions per game. With the range being from Virginia at 63.4 to the top of ~85 possessions/game.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...sions-per-game

Thanks, so it would take 3 scrubs to impact 20 % of their possessions. Doesn't strike me as within the spirit of the rules

[MechanicGuy]

This is an abasement of the sport and should be noticed and punished. Once it's clear of the intent, the player and coach should be quietly warned. Perhaps after the second questionable foul.

That said, Kansas didn't help matters by keeping the player involved in the offense by cutting, screening and posting up. Made it much easier to disguise these fouls.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

This is an abasement of the sport and should be noticed and punished. Once it's clear of the intent, the player and coach should be quietly warned. Perhaps after the second questionable foul.

A foul is punished -- as are repeated fouls, which are penalized more severely after 7 and then again after 10 each half.

I'm not sure why people are so worked up about this. It is a strategy that is limited in its use (limits to roster sizes and 5 fouls per player) and has a very easy counter strategy -- namely substituting a better free throw player into the game. I don't see it as any different than fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock.

If this became such a problem, I think it would need to be addressed with a major rules change (like when the shot clock was added to avoid stall offense). I don't advocate this, but something like making the bonus FTs optional (teams could choose to take the ball OOB instead) would be a better solution than trying to having officials consider a players skill at shooting FTs and how far down the depth chart the fouler is when determining whether or not to rule a common or intentional/FF1

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

You do understand where all this could lead, it's nuts to not clarify before somebody really abuses it, perhaps in a tourney game. As you are presenting it, a team with a 50% FT shooter could, actually should if the idea is to maximize probability of winning, see 1/4 of their possessions with that guy at the FT line. If a team is average 1.2 points per possession, the math is quite tempting, particularly over the 1 and 1's each half. I have not seen a team try this other than OU, so if the window is open and NCAA admin of officials doesn't clarify, someone will push the envelope. I don't really care, just find it interesting.

but to answer your question I guess, no, you rarely if ever see a player trying to prevent another player from moving in open court to set a ball screen, and it is quite clear what the intent is here, particularly given the fact that the defender involved is off the end of the bench.

You position, I take it, is as long as it isn't a bear hug or 2 hand push, and as long as the fouled player isn't standing in the corner, it's not an F1? I'm trying to exercise common sense on 'intent', and yes, whether the player committing the repeated fouls is from the end of the bench is relevant to that issue.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen anyone associated with the KU program even hint that they should have been F1, that is not their style, I'm just curious whether actual D1 officials have been given any better guidance on how to assess or handle this situation if it comes up. Apparently the answer is no. I watch a lot of basketball and have never seen it off-ball like this. No need to foul the player with the ball late anymore, apparently, as long as you don't bear hug or push with your hands. I'm just trying to get it defined with a little more clarity. Surely it is an interesting question for people that officiate, and please don't tell me it's clear to anyone as to how to handle it? If so, answer, if that exact conduct happens on fouls 7-9 and a couple more in the first half with a player that isn't normally playing, and then again in the 2nd half for 5 fouls beginning with 7-9 and then a couple more, with another player that doesn't play other than those few minutes, are they all common fouls? In this case, the player that fouled out in 2 minutes got quite an ovation as he was ushered to the bench. No one in the place had any doubt what was going on. My question, could it happen with another 1,2,3 players? where is the line drawn? If there is no answer as of now, we'll probably have a better idea by the end of this season.

I think you are looking for something that is beyond the scope of this forum

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

...

But if a player is moving to set a ball screen and is getting forearmed and hipped off his stride, it is quite obvious that it is not basketball...

...My view is that at least 2, if not 3, of those fouls should be considered F1....

When I played, once I started to recognize the opponent's offense, I would regularly do what I could to prevent screeners from getting to their spot. It is most definitely a basketball play.

Like I said previously, you need to write Art Hyland, because nobody in this forum is on the rules committee nor did any of us work the KU/OU game.

And in my view, none of those fouls came remotely close to being F1's.