Richmond vs. Charlotte End of Game

[twocentsworth]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Even if the kid is gathering to pass or just pick up the dribble? They have to be gathering for the purpose of shooting for it to be a shooting foul...and yes, you have to decide what they were trying to do (some might call it reading their mind). They don't get the benefit of a shooting foul if they gather, get fouled, and then decide to put up a shot.

The game of basketball becomes a lot easier for officials if we simply see the play start, develop, and finish, before we make decisions and blow the whistle.

This most definitely applies in this instance.

The fact still remains: each of the call in the last :04.7 were correct.

[deecee]

This is all the Richmond's coach's fault for his atrocious strategy of lets put the team that's down on the FT line. Isn't the team that's behind supposed to be the ones trying to stop the clock.

He should have been tossed for that call alone. To bad we can't hand out TF's for bonehead coaching (which happens often during each game) but they can question any and all of our calls.

[APG]

Originally Posted by deecee

This is all the Richmond's coach's fault for his atrocious strategy of lets put the team that's down on the FT line. Isn't the team that's behind supposed to be the ones trying to stop the clock.

He should have been tossed for that call alone. To bad we can't hand out TF's for bonehead coaching (which happens often during each game) but they can question any and all of our calls.

You can literally hear broadcasters and fans suggest this tactic in any end of game situation with the team down by 3 having the ball without fail. It's far from an atrocious strategy and works most of the time.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by APG

You can literally hear broadcasters and fans suggest this tactic in any end of game situation with the team down by 3 having the ball without fail. It's far from an atrocious strategy and works most of the time.

Here's why it's atrocious. You are doing 2 things simultaneously. Stopping the clock AND allowing the team that's behind the opportunity to bridge the gap. This allows for the possibility of more things to go wrong than if say the clock were running and a team hits an amazing 3pointer to tie. I also guarantee you that playing good defense and forcing a team into a tough 3 point shot to tie will still give you a statistically better chance at winning than putting them on the line.

What they are also not taking into account, say the shooter makes the first FT, missed the second. You can have a putback, foul on the rebound, and in this case a make and TF. By extending the game you are giving more opportunity for things to not go your way. In the other scenario it's really a miracle 3 that sends the game to OT.

[APG]

Originally Posted by deecee

Here's why it's atrocious. You are doing 2 things simultaneously. Stopping the clock AND allowing the team that's behind the opportunity to bridge the gap. This allows for the possibility of more things to go wrong than if say the clock were running and a team hits an amazing 3pointer to tie. I also guarantee you that playing good defense and forcing a team into a tough 3 point shot to tie will still give you a statistically better chance at winning than putting them on the line.

What they are also not taking into account, say the shooter makes the first FT, missed the second. You can have a putback, foul on the rebound, and in this case a make and TF. By extending the game you are giving more opportunity for things to not go your way. In the other scenario it's really a miracle 3 that sends the game to OT.

You also have to have a lot more things go right for you..first off make the first free throw..miss the free throw and hope it bounces in just the correct manner in which you can catch it...and get a decent shot off. Also remember in NCAA-M, the defense has the numbers advantage as only people in the lane can enter in early...it's 4 vs. 2 as far as who can fight for position earlier.

It's a lot rarer to see all that happen than a team to make a three pointer to tie it up. The biggest risk in fouling to not ensure the tying 3 is the fact that a 4 point play could occur if the offensive player is heads up enough and the defense isn't careful enough.

My main point in all of this is that the strategy is far from atrocious.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by APG

My main point in all of this is that the strategy is far from atrocious.

You are correct, and I should reword my initial statement to any intentional (intentional in the means to force FT's) foul by the leading team and therefore stopping the game clock is atrocious.

[mutantducky]

man as a Richmond fan I'd be ticked but after watching the replays I can't fault the officials. (As for the later Tech's I don't know)
After reading the recaps I thought it would have been more controversial but I think most people will agree Richmond shot themselves in the foot.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

The game of basketball becomes a lot easier for officials if we simply see the play start, develop, and finish, before we make decisions and blow the whistle.

This most definitely applies in this instance.

The fact still remains: each of the call in the last :04.7 were correct.

The point is that no matter how many times people use term "gather" it still means absolutely nothing according to the rules. Gather is just a fancy word for catching the ball. Many different things may follow catching the ball and only one of them is a shot. So, "gather" doesn't imply shooting any more then being 10 feet from the basket does. The only thing it tells you is that prior to the "gather" the player can't be shooting. But that is not one bit different than saying that a player who hasn't caught the ball can't be shooting.

Originally Posted by deecee

...atrocious strategy...

Originally Posted by APG

It's far from an atrocious strategy and works most of the time.

I can see a coach using this tactic in a situation where the other team is making a run and has all the momentum. Fouling for a 1 and 1 or even double bonus can disrupt the rhythm of a team that believes they are capable of continuing their run.

That said, it would be very interesting to see a statistical analysis of this situation versus not fouling at all. I see this strategy as something to be used similarly to the foul to give -- low game time left, etc. I bet the Sloan Conference might have something to say about this.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point is that no matter how many times people use term "gather" it still means absolutely nothing according to the rules. Gather is just a fancy word for catching the ball. Many different things may follow catching the ball and only one of them is a shot. So, "gather" doesn't imply shooting any more then being 10 feet from the basket does. The only thing it tells you is that prior to the "gather" the player can't be shooting. But that is not one bit different than saying that a player who hasn't caught the ball can't be shooting.

Camron,

I'd like to know what your criteria is for a shooting foul. Is gather not part of that equation? Or, what has to happen for you to call "and one".

[IREFU2]

The Coach was out of control. I saw basically the same thing happen in my NCAA D3 Regional Tournament Game with a crew we were following. The coach was T'd for acting nuts and then he was clearly out of the box still acting up, but the crew didnt toss him. IMHO, he should have been ejected. So, I am all for the actions of that crew in the Richmond game.

[BillyMac]

Let's say, in this play, that the player gets held after he "gathers" and starts to do something with the ball, but is held in such a way so that the ball is never released from his hands?

We've all seen this play on a put back a few feet from the basket where we are 100% sure that there would have been a shot if the defender had not held the shooter and we have awarded appropriate free throws for the act of shooting. Now move that same play back to forty feet away from the basket. What do we have?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's say, in this play, that the player gets held after he "gathers" and starts to do something with the ball, but is held in such a way so that the ball is never released from his hands?

We've all seen this play on a put back a few feet from the basket where we are 100% sure that there would have been a shot if the defender had not held the shooter and we have awarded appropriate free throws for the act of shooting. Now move that same play back to forty feet away from the basket. What do we have?

Sometimes you need to officiate.

I just watched the play. Shooting foul, imo.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Camron,

I'd like to know what your criteria is for a shooting foul. Is gather not part of that equation? Or, what has to happen for you to call "and one".

It's necessary but not sufficient.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's necessary but not sufficient.

Then, what criteria would make it sufficient? Is it as simple as "in my judgement, he/she was shooting?