Free throw violations by both teams, not simultaneous

[deecee]

We can add Coach B's strategy to the stupid and insane list of basketball strategies. If your team has the ball for an inbounds with a 1 point lead with 1 second to go and you lose the game, then you deserve the loss.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

We can add Coach B's strategy to the stupid and insane list of basketball strategies. If your team has the ball for an inbounds with a 1 point lead with 1 second to go and you lose the game, then you deserve the loss.

Really? B is up by 2 with one FT pending for A. B is trying to get the ball OOB with 1 second left rather than risk a rebound with a two-point lead.

I'm not allowing it, but it's the right concept.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

Really? B is up by 2 with one FT pending for A. B is trying to get the ball OOB with 1 second left rather than risk a rebound with a two-point lead.

I'm not allowing it, but it's the right concept.

In my 20+ years of basketball I have never seen a purposely missed FT tactic work. The FT normally either bounces high and gets batted around OR flies almost to the backcourt. If a team wins off this it's of the miracle variety. Box out, get the rebound, get fouled, or game ends. Straegizing against miracles is a waste of time and IMO stupid. There's a reason its called a miracle.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

In my 20+ years of basketball I have never seen a purposely missed FT tactic work. The FT normally either bounces high and gets batted around OR flies almost to the backcourt. If a team wins off this it's of the miracle variety. Box out, get the rebound, get fouled, or game ends. Straegizing against miracles is a waste of time and IMO stupid. There's a reason its called a miracle.

I've seen it work. I've seen the team get the rebound and not make the basket. It's slightly more likely than a hail mary, I suppose, but calling it a miracle is a stretch.

Tuesday night, A had a 1-1 with a 2 point lead and 4 seconds left and B was out of timeouts. They pulled back all their rebounders. He missed the FT, B1 got the rebound and had had a wide open lane to the division line where he banked in the game winner as time expired.

Probably about the same odds.

[deecee]

adam, I've had a similar full court heave or two, but it's the defenses fault. Don't pull your kids back and just instruct them to challenge the shot and not foul. Heaves are way easier when they are unobstructed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

adam, I've had a similar full court heave or two, but it's the defenses fault. Don't pull your kids back and just instruct them to challenge the shot and not foul. Heaves are way easier when they are unobstructed.

I agree, and after the game we talked about it in the locker room. He spent 3.5 seconds lining up that shot as he dribbled to the division line.

But I see far more offensive rebounds and put-backs than I do made half-court shots. Is it a long shot? Yep. So? It's the only legal chance they have. Otherwise, they're giving the ball back to the other team, still down 1, with 1 second on the clock.

[CoachJW]

Thank you for your input. It may be a stupid strategy, it may be a brilliant strategy. Assume now that the shooter is skilled at missing off the rim and the game reaches the "actionless contest" or "impasse" point (shooter keeps missing, opponent keeps violating, re-shoot, repeat). Is the consensus that you would have a warning, then a technical foul on the next violation? Given that you cannot force the shooter to make his shot and end the insanity, how many times would it have to occur before administering the warning?

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by deecee

adam, I've had a similar full court heave or two, but it's the defenses fault. Don't pull your kids back and just instruct them to challenge the shot and not foul. Heaves are way easier when they are unobstructed.

Plus I think we officials are sometimes loathe to call a shooting foul on a half court prayer. If the contact is huge, yeah. Otherwise (and I'm not saying this is right, but...) we tend to bail out. Good coaches know that. So challenge the shot!

Sort of like in football when the R resists calling a safety unless he is 125% sure the running back failed to get out of the end zone.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by deecee

In my 20+ years of basketball I have never seen a purposely missed FT tactic work. The FT normally either bounces high and gets batted around OR flies almost to the backcourt. If a team wins off this it's of the miracle variety. Box out, get the rebound, get fouled, or game ends. Straegizing against miracles is a waste of time and IMO stupid. There's a reason its called a miracle.

It worked just last year in the UMD-UVA game at Maryland on senior night. Maryland up three in regulation elects to foul with a few seconds left in order to not give up the game-tying 3. UVA in the bonus. UVA makes the first, misses the second on purpose, and in a battle for the rebound it goes out of bounds off UMD. UVA runs a great inbounds play and scores. UMD won in OT, but that's not relevant.

It's been established there's no NFHS rule against it, but is there a NCAA rule against the non-shooting team violating on purpose? You have to make sure your team has the possession arrow, otherwise the shooting team could violate on purpose right after u do, and gain the possession.

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by deecee

We can add Coach B's strategy to the stupid and insane list of basketball strategies. If your team has the ball for an inbounds with a 1 point lead with 1 second to go and you lose the game, then you deserve the loss.

It's actually a very good strategy. I think you mis-read it. The coach's strategy is to actually get the inbounds with 1 second left, to give him a better chance of winning.