coach yelling for players to foul

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jesse James

Thank God you're not on the rules committee. Having a rebounding foul in the waning seconds of a tie game carry the same resulting penalty as a technical foul seems an itsy bit harsh to me.

With a little tweaking, he has a good idea. I would like to see something along the lines of the following, "Any foul committed with under 1 minute remaining in the 4th Q or any extra period by the team behind in the score and while the opponent has team control shall result in the awarding of 2FTs and possesion of the ball at the nearest spot."

This annoying foul, foul, foul at the end of games would cease and teams would have to play quality defense.

[Time2Ref]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
In the Fed book this year, it says that fouling to stop the clock is "an acceptable coaching strategy." Which is sort of inconsistent with the idea of intentional foul -- and why I would like to see the term changed.

I'll take a guess as to why they might have said that. The NFHS doesn't dictate coaching strategy. One of their main goals to to provide a fair game by dictating rules. Who can deny that when your team is down late in the forth quarter, you have to stop that clock. You have to get points on the board. Else, your gonna lose. I saw Jimmy V. win every game "coming from behind" by fouling.(at least every game from the sweet sixteen) It's a long shot, but it happens all the time. (Why players can't hit a foul shot is beyond me). He won the NCAA championship by using this strategy. Apparently, it's a pretty good stategy. It's a long shot and it doesn't always work. But, at that point in time, it's your only shot. (I think that they may have added some rules after that tourney, but not exactly sure) So, not to accept that this is a valid strategy would be denying the obvious.

So, the NFHS doesn't pretend to dictate a coaches strategy (except sportsmanship, etc), it definately dictates the players behavior on the court.

NFHS 4-19-3:
..............Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based soley on the severity of the act.............

So, while it may be ok for the coach to use this as a strategy, his players BETTER be playing the ball.

I had a game the other night. It was a good one, between two good teams. Late in the forth quarter, visiting team was up by about 5. I'm not sure what the coach was saying (besides "over the back" all night. LOL) It was obvious the home team was going into the "let's foul em" strategy. We checked with the table to make sure we knew the bonus count and any players close to fouling out. Then A1 fouls B1. I blow my whistle. Almost immediately, my partner blows his whistle. I check, he called traveling. I said I had a foul before the travel and the foul casued the travel. As we were going to the other end to shoot foul shots, A1 comes up to me and says something like "wasn't it travel?". I said you fouled him, wasn't that what you were trying to do?. He looks at his team mate and says "Joe, I'm doping here". I had to laugh to myself. What ever "I'm doping here" means.

Anyway, I didn't call the intentional. Could of, probably should have. But, it wasn't a hard foul, only about 7 seconds left on the clock, the game was pretty much over. Of course, both foul shots go in. Clock runs out. It was a good game. (I DID hear the visiting bench yelling "DON'T FOUL, DON'T FOUL")

Somebody has to lose.

Anyway, it's just a guess. NFHS doesn't claim to dictate strategy, just game play.

[Edited by Time2Ref on Feb 16th, 2006 at 08:00 AM]

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Time2Ref
I saw Jimmy V. win every game "coming from behind" by fouling.(at least every game from the sweet sixteen) It's a long shot, but it happens all the time. (Why players can't hit a foul shot is beyond me). He won the NCAA championship by using this strategy. Apparently, it's a pretty good stategy. It's a long shot and it doesn't always work. But, at that point in time, it's your only shot. (I think that they may have added some rules after that tourney, but not exactly sure) So, not to accept that this is a valid strategy would be denying the obvious.

1983 North Carolina State over Houston 54-52
1984 Georgetown over Houston 84-75
1985 Villanova over Georgetown 66-64
1986 Louisville over Duke 72-69
1987 Indiana over Syracuse 74-73


1986 was the first tourney with a shot clock (45 seconds)
1987 was the first tourney with the three point shot

I believe that the field went to 64 teams in 1985. Prior to that certain teams had byes in the first round.

[Nevadaref]

Rather than in the final minute, perhaps after the shot clock is turned off might be an even better time frame.

[Jesse James]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Rather than in the final minute, perhaps after the shot clock is turned off might be an even better time frame.

So a team down 1, legitimately scrambling to make a steal or a blocked shot, fouls, and the resulting penalty should be two shots and the ball. But not if you're ahead. Wow.

Leave it as is, just call the annoying fouls and get home three minutes later.

[Kostja]

As I alwasy find it helpful to read how you handle certain situations in the US (high school and college), I'd like to give you my opinion on intentional/common fouls in the end of games (from a FIBA standpoint, so to say) ...

I think we agree that it is an accepted strategy to foul to stop the clock when your team's behind and time is running down.

But, intentional (or unsportsmanlike, as we call them) fouls have to be called when a player without the ball is fouled to stop the clock (that's not a legitimate play, as long as it is not in the attempt to deny a pass or something like that), the foul occurs before the game clock has been started after a dead ball situation to prevent it from further running down, and of course in all situation where you would call an intentional foul earlier in the game (excessive contact, push, grab from behind and so on).

What we do to prevent players from committing intentional fouls, is call common fouls pretty fast. Every referee should be able to recognize stop-the-clock situations. If a contact occurs with the assumed intention to stop the clock, call it regadless of advantage/disadvantage, so it is not necessary to repeat contact with higher intensity.

Best regards
Kostja

[biz]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
My idea for years has been 2 shots and the ball for any foul inside of 1 minute to play in the fourth quarter. I don't quite understand why the rules committee would say that committing a rules infraction is an "acceptable strategy."

Aggie this "idea" is completely against what the book says and what occurs, in reality, in every gym across the country, at all levels.

The "committing of a rules infraction" (as you put it) carries with it a penalty and if a team chooses to accept the penalty because it gives them a chance to win the game then so be it.

Most states don't have a shot clock for HS...if I'm coaching a team that has a lead I'm going "four-corners" and if my team runs it right the only way the other team is getting the ball back is by putting us on the line.

All that has to happen to end the constant fouling at the end of games is better free throw shooting...nuf said!

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Kostja
If a contact occurs with the assumed intention to stop the clock, call it regadless of advantage/disadvantage, so it is not necessary to repeat contact with higher intensity.

The flip side of that method is that you are putting the team with the ball at a disadvantage by calling small contact a foul, stopping the clock, and forcing them to shoot FTs. The team who is ahead is passing the ball around and trying to AVOID being fouled so that the clock will continue to run and you advocate the referee coming in and helping the defense stop that clock!?!?

As well-intentioned as your philosophy is, it sounds like you are helping the team that is behind.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by biz

All that has to happen to end the constant fouling at the end of games is better free throw shooting...nuf said!

So what's easier, making 2 FTs or a three point shot? Average FT% sixty something. Average 3pt % thirty something.

The addition of the 3pt shot greatly enhanced the strategy of fouling at the end of a game. The most that your team can give up is two points, but you will have a chance for 3 at the other end.

Prior to the three point shot a team could be assured of maintaining its lead if it made its FTs. Now the team could make ALL of its FTs and see the opponent erase its lead with a few treys.

The risk/reward ratio is clearly better today than in the past.

Perhaps a third FT should be considered. 1-1 at 7, 2 at 10, 3 at 12 team fouls or more.
We could use the terms: bonus, double bonus, and super bonus (or triple bonus).

[biz]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

So what's easier, making 2 FTs or a three point shot? Average FT% sixty something. Average 3pt % thirty something.

The addition of the 3pt shot greatly enhanced the strategy of fouling at the end of a game. The most that your team can give up is two points, but you will have a chance for 3 at the other end.

Prior to the three point shot a team could be assured of maintaining its lead if it made its FTs. Now the team could make ALL of its FTs and see the opponent erase its lead with a few treys.

The risk/reward ratio is clearly better today than in the past.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You're right Nevada, the risk-reward is much better, but in my experience reffing, coaching, and playing if you hit you're FTs down the stretch it becomes tougher and tougher to hit that 3 because the defense is sometimes conceeding the 2 to defend the 3...

Of course I've never reffed, coached, or played against J.J. Redick

[Ignats75]

People clamoring for a rule change to eliminate fouling at the end of games and forcing the team with the lead to hit their foul shots reminds me of bean counters in a business. They have no understanding of the strategy of the game (or business), they just think that by changing the way things are done will improve the situation (either more entertaining and fair, or profitable)

Legitimate attempts at a steal with no concern for getting a foul have been around since before I was born! Practice your foul shots---now THERE'S a novel idea---- and win the game.

[Kostja]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

The flip side of that method is that you are putting the team with the ball at a disadvantage by calling small contact a foul, stopping the clock, and forcing them to shoot FTs. The team who is ahead is passing the ball around and trying to AVOID being fouled so that the clock will continue to run and you advocate the referee coming in and helping the defense stop that clock!?!?

As well-intentioned as your philosophy is, it sounds like you are helping the team that is behind.

First of all, I don't think it is a disadvantage to put a team on the line. Every team will try to put the ball in the hands of its best freethrow shooter at the end of games, right? It still gives the players the opportunity to decide the outcome of the game, and as a bonus, nobody gets hurt!

But maybe, I just missed a couple of words here ;-) :
If a contact occurs that could be called as a foul, call it regadless of advantage/disadvantage, so it is not necessary to repeat contact with higher intensity.

[Jimgolf]

If you are going to call an intentional foul when the coach yells "Foul!", how about when the coach yells "Red" and the player fouls. This could mean the same thing.

Strategic fouling is part of the game, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you eliminate strategic fouling, then the game is over with 35 seconds left.

Why fix what ain't broke?

[mplagrow]

So what about when the team breaks the huddle after a time-out, and a player runs to you and says, "We're going to try to foul." Personally, I treat it the same way as if a player said, "We're going to try to travel." I'll call it when I have it, and if they're playing the ball, give them the benefit of the doubt. Still, I'd rather not have them tell me. Cripes, seven seconds left, down by one, everyone in the gym already knows that they're going to try to foul!

[Forksref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

A few years ago, a FED POE contained some sentence to the effect that "If a coach tells the players to foul, it's an intentional foul."

This year (I think), FED rescinded that -- the coach's language does not determine the type of foul. The player's actions determine the type of foul.

I agree with Bob. Also, coaches want their players to try to get a steal before they intentionally foul. Therefore, the "reach" for the ball may be a legitimate attempt to steal it, not the intentional foul.