coach yelling for players to foul

[Forksref]

Originally posted by biz

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]

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 [/B][/QUOTE]

When I was coaching, we'd foul (going for the ball, of course) if we had a 3-pt lead and under 10 seconds left in the period. I won several games that way. I'd rather have them shoot a FT or two then have a lucky three tie us. In order to tie us in the FT situation, they have to: make 1, miss the second, get their own rebound, make a basket. This is not nearly as easy as throwing up a three. Also, with it being under 10 seconds, we don't have to get the ball across half-court if we get the rebound. And now, you have them outnumbered in the lane by 2-1. I've seen major colleges lose big-time NCAA games and lose big-time bucks by missing the next round because they let a team get a three to tie at the end of the period. Most coaches don't have the guts to foul.

[David M]

B. Late in the game. Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped. There is widespread belief that it works or it wouldn’t be coached.
Here is the POE directly from the NFHS website.

There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. “Going for the ball” is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely, a coach who yells, “Foul!” instructions to his or her team does not mean the ensuing foul is “automatically” an intentional foul — even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials, players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a legitimate coaching strategy.

With that, officials must have the courage to enforce the intentional foul rule. Far too often, officials do not whistle fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria. Officiating philosophies should not change because of the time remaining in the game or the score differential. The correct call should be made — not the popular one.

[assignmentmaker]

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.

Indeed.

That being said, as it happens, I was discussing this very subject with my partner yesterday, comparing 'code words'. His was 'Chinese'! No, I don't know why.

I used to use 'Get the ball'. My guys needed reminding on technique, and I always felt I was putting our actions in the best possible light vis-a-vis the officials.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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.

Let's use your numbers to dig into this: 60% FT success and 30% three point success.

As an example let's say B fouls A five times in exchange for five 3 point attempts. (Fair amount, no?)

Using your numbers on average A will earn 6 points (.6 X 10 possible) and B will earn 5 points (.3 X 15 possible).

This results in A increasing their lead by 1 point on average.

Where's the advantage again?

[kiwiref]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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.

Could not agree more... It's also about "rewarding" good play, in a way. A skillful player will try to get the ball and in the process he/she may commit a foul. On the other side of the spectrum is a brainless two-legged monster who will almost tackle the nearest opposition player, and who will have to be punished for this with "the Capital X", as someone has called it.

[Adam]

It's not any different than a football team taking a delay of game penalty to get punting room, or stepping out of bounds through their endzone when their punter is backed up and time is getting short on their 11 point lead. Or an intentional walk in baseball.