2-foul sit rule

[Neue Regel]

Coach K does not, he is the only big time coach I know that does not. He has lost or been affected in NCAA's by not sitting the guy. At least 2-3 games they have lost in last 15 years in tourney almost all of those were affected by a big or someone else picking up that 3rd in 1st half.

You always sit the guy, any more evidence needed was PJ coming out playing great and UK building 8 point lead with 3 minutes. He picks up 4th at 15 minute mark in second half then that game would be over because Travis would foul out. It is a smart move and only move unless you are getting blown out by 18-20, keeping it close or under 10 or 3 possession game.

He does and he doesn't. Think it depends on the situation. The one I can remember in your timeline is the 2004 UCONN Final Four game when Calhoun parked Okafor and K kept Williams in. Okafor though fouled out three Duke bigs in the second so it probably wouldn't have mattered.

Would be 2 more banners in Durham and Lexington if not for the Huskies.

 

[Gocats1954]

Reid Travis got called for fouls against Tennessee just because he was in the same zip code as the Tennessee player. That is what is so frustrating about bad officials. They drastically alter the outcome of the game. It is not decided by the players.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

The only part I don't like is that these guys NEVER come back in for the rest of the half. If PJ picks up a 2nd foul, pull him for a bit, calm him down and find out more, but you have to put him back in.

Also, think of the strategy. if opposing coaches (and officials) know this, they will always try and draw fouls on our best guys, knowing they won't come back. If Cal adopts a strategy of only pulling these guys for 4-8 min, the opposition might not use this method as much/

 

[turkeywildturkey]

An innovative coach would teach his players how to play with 2 fouls in the 1st half. Other players would need to be coached on how to help the player out on D.

What a stupid, ridiculous post. You’ve obviously never played, or coached basketball.

 

[Trinity45]

Cal uses it, a lot of coaches use it.

I think it is stupid, at least to be a hard-fast rule for coaches to use every time, every situation, every player.

Why?
What do you want from your players? You want to get the most out of them while they are on the court. For your better players that means you want to maximize their time (minutes) on the court. You see it happen a handful of times a season, a key guy gets 2 fouls in the first 4 minutes, and because his coach goes by that rule, the player can play at most 24 minutes that game. But doing that means he doesn't get a breather in the 2nd half, which also might not maximize his play. So maybe he's down to 22 minutes max.
Are the last 4 minutes of the game more important than say 4 minutes in the middle? Some say yes, I say it depends, so no.
NO one wants to foul out. A guy gets 2 early fouls, he will be more selective, more careful less aggressive going forward. Now if the player takes that too far, then defensively he could become a liability, so the coach needs to consider that. How much better is this player with 2 fouls (or 3 or 4) than his replacement.
But I'd rather get 28 minutes from PJ but he foul out with 3 minutes to go, than 22 minutes from PJ and he finish the game with 3 or 4 fouls.
Now there may be exceptions. Say the guy is your primary ballhandler and best FT shooter, then maybe you really want him at the end of the game (where he will be getting fouled) more than the middle.

But when a guy gets that 2nd first half foul, or 3rd foul with more than 10min to go, it probably is a good idea to sit him for a minute, just to remind him he has foul trouble, so don't commit any silly fouls. And if the team is playing well without him, no need to rush him back (we saw that midway in the 2nd half on Saturday then Travis sat for a bit). But if things start to slip, I would put my better players back in.

Not much you can do if you want to continue to play man to man, now if Cal switched to a zone you could probably keep a player with 2 fouls out there with less chance of picking up #3.

 

[UKvisitor_rivals101449]

What a stupid, ridiculous post. You’ve obviously never played, or coached basketball.

Why is it stupid? You make a claim but offer nothing to back up your statement. You could have disagreed with out a personal attack.
Wrong, I have done both.

 

[UKvisitor_rivals101449]

How can you teach that though when refs will call games continuously different throughout the game?

Sometimes the refs will let you murder someone out there and not call a foul the other times they’ll call it if you breathe on a guy.

I agree, there is nothing anyone can do against poor officiating.
Just because no coach has figured it out doesn't mean it can't be done with the right players.

 

[ukwazoo]

Cal uses it, a lot of coaches use it.

I think it is stupid, at least to be a hard-fast rule for coaches to use every time, every situation, every player.

Why?
What do you want from your players? You want to get the most out of them while they are on the court. For your better players that means you want to maximize their time (minutes) on the court. You see it happen a handful of times a season, a key guy gets 2 fouls in the first 4 minutes, and because his coach goes by that rule, the player can play at most 24 minutes that game. But doing that means he doesn't get a breather in the 2nd half, which also might not maximize his play. So maybe he's down to 22 minutes max.
Are the last 4 minutes of the game more important than say 4 minutes in the middle? Some say yes, I say it depends, so no.
NO one wants to foul out. A guy gets 2 early fouls, he will be more selective, more careful less aggressive going forward. Now if the player takes that too far, then defensively he could become a liability, so the coach needs to consider that. How much better is this player with 2 fouls (or 3 or 4) than his replacement.
But I'd rather get 28 minutes from PJ but he foul out with 3 minutes to go, than 22 minutes from PJ and he finish the game with 3 or 4 fouls.
Now there may be exceptions. Say the guy is your primary ballhandler and best FT shooter, then maybe you really want him at the end of the game (where he will be getting fouled) more than the middle.

But when a guy gets that 2nd first half foul, or 3rd foul with more than 10min to go, it probably is a good idea to sit him for a minute, just to remind him he has foul trouble, so don't commit any silly fouls. And if the team is playing well without him, no need to rush him back (we saw that midway in the 2nd half on Saturday then Travis sat for a bit). But if things start to slip, I would put my better players back in.

I agree 1,000%. I'd also argue that it sends a message to the rest of the team that the first half isn't that important...since the star player is sitting. I've always hated this rule and am with you.

I remember Tubby kept putting Chuck Hayes on the bench because he had 4 fouls...in a REGIONAL FINAL GAME. What on Earth was he saving him for? Aggravating.

 

[jrpross_rivals]

I see both sides of it. It seems most here few like Cal should leave him in. But there’s 2 problems with that.

1. If he fouls again and has 3 before the half, he plays much more carefully and conservatively the rest of the game so as not to get any more. Do we want 22 minutes of beast PJ or 30 minutes of scared PJ?

And 2. If he ends up fouling out, they are finishing the game without their best player. If it’s tight at the end, I want PJ on the floor.

I do see both sides, and I don’t necessarily disagree, but just playing devils advocate, there are strong reasons for it too.

 

[JC43]

Walker was the UT player who goaded PJ . I don't recall him getting much playing time.

Thanks couldn't remember the rat bast%=#
Name

 

[Bluegrassking]

An innovative coach would teach his players how to play with 2 fouls in the 1st half. Other players would need to be coached on how to help the player out on D.

You do see the kind of whistles we get, right?

What would you have "innovated" to keep Reid from picking up fouls Saturday and if it is any thing like "he makes 8 million a year so..." then save it because even a trillion a year doesn't come with magic.

 

[caneintally]

I'd rather see him sit a guy after his first foul for 5 minutes so there's a good chance they a) think hard about not getting that 2nd foul and 2) have a good chance to play the last several minutes of a half and have some momentum carried into halftime instead of being ice cold for about an hour if you count halftime.

This where I am at. I think you don't play a guy with 2 fouls in the first half 90% of the time but you should always sit a guy after his first foul for the reasons you underline. I am also a big fan of not starting your best so they avoid a foul in the first 2 minutes as the first few minutes just flat out really don't matter much unless you get up 14-0 or go down 0-14 or something like that.

 

[caneintally]

An innovative coach would teach his players how to play with 2 fouls in the 1st half. Other players would need to be coached on how to help the player out on D.

Well that sounds nice and all but has zero to do with anything that has happened this year. The refs call it differently every single game in the SEC . It is a true point but just not relevant .

 

[irishcat1965]

An innovative coach would teach his players how to play with 2 fouls in the 1st half. Other players would need to be coached on how to help the player out on D.

Except for the fact that a coach can’t coach a ref not to make a terrible call. What a ridiculous post.

 

[UKvisitor_rivals101449]

You do see the kind of whistles we get, right?

What would you have "innovated" to keep Reid from picking up fouls Saturday and if it is any thing like "he makes 8 million a year so..." then save it because even a trillion a year doesn't come with magic.

Well that sounds nice and all but has zero to do with anything that has happened this year. The refs call it differently every single game in the SEC . It is a true point but just not relevant .

Except for the fact that a coach can’t coach a ref not to make a terrible call. What a ridiculous post.

So the real problem this tread is on, is the bad officiating, not any so called 2 foul rule a coach utilizes. It is not a rule and has never been one.

 

[CincinnatiWildcat]

I don't understand why everyone seems to think CBB should go to 6 fouls. College is a shorter game than the NBA which is why the NBA has that extra foul, they have 8 more minutes of game time. Also adding another foul would not fix the problem or star players getting in foul trouble it would simply allow the teams who hack and grab all game to do and get away with more of that. This would decrease freedom of movement and make the game more of a rock fight again. We do not need an extra foul, what we need is refs who call the fouls correctly

 

[irishcat1965]

So the real problem this tread is on, is the bad officiating, not any so called 2 foul rule a coach utilizes. It is not a rule and has never been one.

It doesn’t matter what it is called. No amount of coaching can prevent a ref from calling a terrible third foul. Only sitting a player can prevent that.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

I recall the 1983 title game, when Guy Lewis left Clyde Drexler in the game with 2 fouls. Picked up his 3rd, still in the first half. Took a chance, left him in. Picked up his 4th at the end of the half on a charge call. You can guess, if you don't remember, how Clyde played in the second half with just one more foul to give.

I'm all for taking calculated risks. Many people in life are simply risk averse, and going against that grain - albeit in an intelligent way - is one way to gain an advantage. In the high pressure stakes of college basketball and college football, coaches are habitually too cautious.

But I don't favor this. It's so risky as to be dumb. And besides, I'd like to see this board the first time it backfired, and we had a guy pick up #3 midway through the first half and render himself half-useless. This board would self-immolate.

 

[Eddie Gran can coach]

You cant lock yourself into sitting your best player with 2 fouls in first half, every situation needs its own decision