This has been a topic on here before. Some people think you should and others don't. In the Hofstra/Monmouth game, Monmouth had a 3 point lead and fouled Hofstra with 5 seconds to go. They make the first free throw, miss the second, and then tap it out to the three point area where they proceed to hit a 3 pointer to win the game by 1. I prefer to play tough defense on the 3 point shooters over fouling. I can see either way working or failing, but I just prefer not to give the other team any free points with the clock stopped.
Fouling When Up By 3
- Thread starter KyCatFan1
- Start date
If there is 3 seconds or less on the clock then I would do the tough nose defense. If you block out with that little time you win or at worst send it to overtime.
I'm with you unless my team isn't in the bonus. Then, foul all day until you commit the sixth foul.
By not fouling, presuming you're in the bonus, unless YOU foul on the 3-pointer, the worst you can go is go to OT.
IF you foul up 3, there's a lot of variables including the back-tap 3 or offensive rebound and-1 after the second shotthat can beat you.
By not fouling, presuming you're in the bonus, unless YOU foul on the 3-pointer, the worst you can go is go to OT.
IF you foul up 3, there's a lot of variables including the back-tap 3 or offensive rebound and-1 after the second shotthat can beat you.
Last edited:
I honestly don't like it. I think it's kind of Bush league and takes away from the game. Play good D and force them into a tough 3 point attempt. If they blow by you so what it's not gonna win the game if you're up by 3.
Always foul. I can give you 25 examples to your 1. I've seen tons of games where teams didn't foul, and ended up allowing a team to tie the game with a three.
If you can't get a rebound on a missed free throw, then you probably don't deserve to win anyway.
Or block out and get a rebound off the FT.
There's no right or wrong answer, but the odds favor the team that fouls.
Just play solid defense like you've been teaching/taught all season. I DO NOT TRUST NCAA REFS. I'm not one in favor of putting the game in the hands of referees (more than they already are), using their judgment to decide if someone was "in the act of shooting " a desperation heave or not.
As much as we UK fans complain about bias/getting hosed by the refs, I'm shocked how many folks here want them to potentially determine the games outcome. Trust me, guys like Higgins, TV Valentine, Doug Shows pray for the day Cal is in a situation like this.
As much as we UK fans complain about bias/getting hosed by the refs, I'm shocked how many folks here want them to potentially determine the games outcome. Trust me, guys like Higgins, TV Valentine, Doug Shows pray for the day Cal is in a situation like this.
A lot of crazy finishes last night, here are the highlights
ESPN won't let me post the video
And the nominees for Best Finish are...
Mid-major hoops were full of wild finishes on Wednesday night, which team did it best?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/
Scroll down to about the 8th video
ESPN won't let me post the video
And the nominees for Best Finish are...
Mid-major hoops were full of wild finishes on Wednesday night, which team did it best?
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/
Scroll down to about the 8th video
Last edited:
I think the skill of the opposing shooter(s) on the opposing team has to factor into the equation. If they have a guy (or two) that are hot three point shooters I think I would recommend fouling. So may of these shooters are damn near automatic, even with a hand in their face.
Always foul.
They have to make the first. Then miss the second. Then get the rebound. Then make the shot.
So since it is a guard:
.8 they make first
.9 they miss second
.5 they get rebound
,5 they make the shot
18 percent is less than 82 percent.
Nothing is perfect.
They have to make the first. Then miss the second. Then get the rebound. Then make the shot.
So since it is a guard:
.8 they make first
.9 they miss second
.5 they get rebound
,5 they make the shot
18 percent is less than 82 percent.
Nothing is perfect.
This. But I also don’t like how football teams can win with 1.5+ minutes left by spiking the ball. Just not my style.
Umm, 1.5 minutes is plenty of time to make a comeback without spiking the ball to stop the clock.. Now taking a knee without running a real play while leading with 1.5 minutes to ensure the win is different.
Yes, that first part (foul until get the 6th foul) shouldn't even be debatable.
I do agree that you shouldn't foul in most cases. An offensive rebound or foul rebounding is just as likely as the other team making a 3 for the tie. And even if they do, you still have roughly a 50/50 chance to win in OT. But you can't lose. If you foul, while it is unlikely, it now is possible to lose.
I think a better debate is whether to miss the 2nd FT when up 2, with 2 or less seconds on the clock. I think you should miss it. If you make it you are up 3, and can't lose, but we've all seen a team hitt the 3 w/ 2 seconds, or get fouled (make one and then get the tip in or 2nd foul). But with 2 seconds (3 maybe tough) you can't coral the rebound and get a shot off. Maybe you can sling it 85', maybe, for a 1:1000 chance.
Well I was talking about teams spiking the ball while having the lead. Because there’s enough time for the other team to get an interception, pick up a fumble, or force a 4th down.
I think winning without actually playing is a pansy way to win. I get it’s allowed, in the rules, and widely practiced. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Why would a team leading, spike the ball to stop the clock? I guess you do not watch much football.
I have always thought fouling in that situation is a ***** move. I understand that it may be smarter, but it still takes away from the game.
I think an important factor is how much time is remaining on the clock.
I have another example. 1994 ACC Tournament semi-final Wake vs Chapel Hill College. Wake has Tim Duncan and Randolph Childress. Heels returned four starters from their 93 title team and added Mcinnis/Wallace/Stackhouse. Wake up 3 with 16 seconds left and fouled a Heel player.
Guess what happened? I’ll give you a hint: Overtime with the wrong team winning.
I have another example. 1994 ACC Tournament semi-final Wake vs Chapel Hill College. Wake has Tim Duncan and Randolph Childress. Heels returned four starters from their 93 title team and added Mcinnis/Wallace/Stackhouse. Wake up 3 with 16 seconds left and fouled a Heel player.
Guess what happened? I’ll give you a hint: Overtime with the wrong team winning.
If that's bush league then fouling when you're DOWN in the final seconds so they have to shoot free throws and you get another possession is just as bush league. Literally not any difference. Both strategically use the exact same rule (free throws result from a foul) to try to gain an advantage.
Not the same thing. When you are down you are trying to extend the game and get the ball back. You cannot do that if there are less than 30 seconds left in the game as they can just hold the ball.
I mistyped in my earlier post. But a little common sense would tell you that the clock doesn’t stop when they spike the ball in the last 5 minutes (nfl). In college it’s the last 2 minutes.
And no I don’t watch a lot of football. Just UK. Because I don’t like football, but I still support my team.
Spiking the ball stops the clock, with 1.5+ minutes remaining (stated scenario you gave), would give the losing team the ball back with over a minute remaining. That would be an epically stupid thing to do. I venture to say I have never seen a team with the lead do this in my 30 years of watching football. I think you're confused.
Last edited:
Same thing. Fouling on purpose because you think the result of a foul is in your benefit. No mental gymnastics about WHY you're doing it (extend the game vs limit their ability to hit a 3) changes the fact that you're fouling on purpose to try to gain an advantage. You're just used to one and not the other.
Except the clock DOES stop .... Are you trolling right now?
https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordp...-points-the-first-comprehensive-cbb-analysis/
Of the 52 teams that committed a foul, six lost the game for a winning percentage of 88.46%. Of the 391 teams that did not foul, 33 lost the game for a winning percentage of 91.56%. Both a two sample t-test of proportion and a Chi-squared test fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference in winning percentage between the two strategies. In this sample, teams that did not foul won slightly more often. For the less statistically inclined, this means that there is no significant difference between the two strategies.
That means that in 2009-2010, teams that were down three points at the end of the game scored the necessary points at rates that did not differ based on which strategy the leading team pursued.
Of the 52 teams that committed a foul, six lost the game for a winning percentage of 88.46%. Of the 391 teams that did not foul, 33 lost the game for a winning percentage of 91.56%. Both a two sample t-test of proportion and a Chi-squared test fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference in winning percentage between the two strategies. In this sample, teams that did not foul won slightly more often. For the less statistically inclined, this means that there is no significant difference between the two strategies.
That means that in 2009-2010, teams that were down three points at the end of the game scored the necessary points at rates that did not differ based on which strategy the leading team pursued.
How could something with about a one in five probability be more successful than four out of five?
Apparently fouling on threes. I was talking two shots. Waiting to foul is the danger.
Last edited:
"I just wanted to make this clear: in only 3 of 52 cases did a team miss the 2nd free throw, successfully get the offensive rebound, and score. In this data set, the reason that the intentional foul strategy is not significantly different from not fouling are the cases in which the team fouls a player in the act of shooting a three."
I still remember back in 93 I believe it was when we were up by 3 at Tennessee and we fouled them. They hit the first free throw, missed the second (of course the ref missed the lane violation on Allan Houston crossing the free throw line before the ball hit the rim), rebounded the miss, hit the shot, were fouled, and then hit the free throw to beat us by 1. All that happened in a couple of seconds. So fouling up 3 has beaten us in the past. At least we got revenge and beat them in the rematch by like 60. That was when our victory cigar Todd Svoboda outscored All-SEC player and scoring champ (Allan Houston) 4 to 3.
Only thing I was saying was that there's been multiple studies I think.
The one I saw was different than the one posted above me. But similar results.
I don't really care either way. To be honest.
One might call it "bush league", while another might refer to it as "strategy". I'm on the fence with it as it's situational and also depends on my level of disdain for the team doing it (if it's Duke, UNC, UL, IU, KU, UCLA - then it's bush league...all others I can tolerate, so it's strategy).
I've never heard spiking the football mean taking a knee. I can only go by what people type and that is not even close to the same.
Explain what the op means concerning this quote? In the NFL, the clock stops and will not be restarted when a player goes out of bounds at the last two minutes of the first half and the last five minutes of the second half, until the next snap but has nothing to do with taking a knee or spiking the ball.
Last edited:
Actually, if you read his response he was not talking about taking a knee.
Well, now I know why our football team can't beat Florida. Spiking the ball with the lead isn't a very good strategy. I think we need to tell Coach not to do that!:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: