WASH/UCONN: Why not foul at end of regulation?

[TGR]

Why wouldn't WASH just foul a UCONN player near the end of regulation rather than allow a three point tying shot to be taken? Had WASH fouled the dribbler coming up the court, he would have gone to the line to shoot two free throws. The only way that WASH would have then gone to overtime is for the player to make the first free throw, purposely miss the second, be fortunate enough for a teammate to get the rebound, and then fortunate enough to have that teammate make a last second desperation shot. All of this to just tie the score. However, they allow one of UCONN's best shooters to get off a three pointer. Can someone please give me a valid reason for allowing the latter? Thanks for any insight into the reason for not fouling.

[ronny mulkey]

TGR,

Hypothesis only - Coach instructs his players to foul any player approaching the arc BEFORE they get in the act. Then, he has a non-athletic player trying to guard their best 3 point shooter. This player cannot stay with the shooter close enough to foul?

I'm hoping that they just could not do as instructed. I'm with you on this one. I had rather get beat by all the other slim possibilities involved with putting them on the line than allowing them the opportunity to hoist the trey.

Mulk

[rulesmaven]

I think most coaches have made up their mind about what they will do in this situation, and then they stick to their guns. Jim Calhoun, for example, in that situation, has adamantly refused to do it and says he won't. (See UConn v. Syracuse in the Big East game.)

I think the logic is that if you foul, you actually put losing in regulation into the equation -- no matter how slight a chance. While not fouling usually means overtime at worst and gives you two chances to win (either they miss the three or, even if they hit it, you make a buzzer beater the other way).

And that's how it played out. Washington did have two chances to win, but both things went wrong. I think the one thing in favor of fouling there was the foul trouble -- Romar had to know he was in trouble in overtime.

[ronny mulkey]

By fouling, you dictate the shooter, the subsequent reaction to the free throws, rebounds, etc. and the amount of time to respond. The converse is that the offense determines who and when. Also, it seems to me that players are shooting treys more successfully than f.throws.

But, if it works for Coach Calhoun then who am I to disagree.

Mulk

[zebraman]

If you foul in that situation, you stop the clock and give "free" points to the offensive team. They can make the first free throw and follow-up a miss on the second one.

Coaches know the statistical probabilities of winning in that situation while playing "straight-up" defense rather than fouling. Both Romar and Calhoun prefer the philosophy in that sitch of just playing straight-up defense. It works most of the time and nobody questions the philosophy. When the other team makes a long three to tie it up, all the "backseat coaches" question the philosophy. If Washington fouls and ends up going to O.T. because of a made FT and a follow-up basket (or losing after a made FT and then a pass out for a 3-pointer), there would be even more backseat coaches.

It's always funny to me to be with a group of refs to watch a basketball game. They spend most of the time questioning the coaching decisions. Then they get upset when the coaches question the reffing decisions.

Z

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

But, if it works for Coach Calhoun then who am I to disagree.

Mulk

Well, I don't know about "works." Again, see Syracuse v. UConn.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by zebraman

If you foul in that situation, you stop the clock and give "free" points to the offensive team. They can make the first free throw and follow-up a miss on the second one.

Coaches know the statistical probabilities of winning in that situation while playing "straight-up" defense rather than fouling. Both Romar and Calhoun prefer the philosophy in that sitch of just playing straight-up defense. It works most of the time and nobody questions the philosophy. When the other team makes a long three to tie it up, all the "backseat coaches" question the philosophy. If Washington fouls and ends up going to O.T. because of a made FT and a follow-up basket (or losing after a made FT and then a pass out for a 3-pointer), there would be even more backseat coaches.

It's always funny to me to be with a group of refs to watch a basketball game. They spend most of the time questioning the coaching decisions. Then they get upset when the coaches question the reffing decisions.

Z

Zebra,

I doubt they know the statistical probabilities of this 2nd route because most are scared to even try it. How many times have you seen anybody try it? And, got beat? On the other hand, how many times have you seen the one like last night? The probability of their best 3 points shooter making a trey against passive opposition has to be greater than fouling someone of YOUR choice, WHEN you want, a successful f.throw, hitting iron on the 2nd, rebounding and then converting the basket. Not to mention that because you chose the time remaining to foul, you probably still get time to respond.

Of course, I'm sure these big time coaches don't need any help any more than these big dawg officials need help from me. I'd just like to see one have the balls to try it between this weekend and the next.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Zebra,

I doubt they know the statistical probabilities of this 2nd route because most are scared to even try it.

You're kidding right? With all the money on the line, all the assistant coaches who spend 20 hours a day poring over game film and statistics, you don't think that the coaches know the odds of every last-second situation that they simulate? Come on.

Fans (and refs being fans) only remember the games where the last-second shot went in. They don't remember the hundreds of games where the last second shot missed.

Z

[Nevadaref]

Because some official like me will call it what it is an intentional foul.

[rulesmaven]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because some official like me will call it what it is an intentional foul.

Doug Gottlieb talked about this yesterday on radio, and said that when he played, his coach (Eddie Sutton, I guess) would alert the refs that they were going to do it.

I almost wonder how you don't call an intentional there? The hard part about calling an intentional foul, it seems, is that often you can never be sure what was in a player's mind. But when the coach tells you they are going to foul, you don't really need to guess. I suppose the coaches are a little more sophisticated -- if he says, "we're going to go for the steal and play very physical, and if it's a foul, so be it," then I guess that communicates the idea in a more ambiguous way.