What are your thoughts about fouling when you're up by 3 with a few seconds left? I get, as a coach, it's your job to get a W. But, IMO it's pretty cowardly and outside the spirit of competition. Just see it as a cheap way to win a game. Thoughts?
Fouling when you're up by 3...
- Thread starter SemperFiCat
- Start date
Perfectly acceptable, in my opinion. You use rules to your advantage when you can. Certainly nothing cowardly about it.
What if Kentucky lost the SECTC because a team fouled before we could get off a three?
Then Kentucky should have not put itself in that position. The goal is to win. As long as you remain within the rules, there is nothing wrong with preventing the other team from tying the game with a three-pointer.
Then they did what they had to do to win. I don’t have a problem with it.
I know what the goal is. Just think it's pretty cheap. JMO, I just don't like it.
How many points does the spirit of competition put on the scoreboard?
Does anyone remember Cal, or any high profile coach doing that? Honest question, just asking. I don't think I haven't seen it in a Blue Blood type game, unless it was a potential underdog upset.
To answer the question though. Foul if you can. College basketball players though make me nervous lol. I could see a touch foul end up a 4 pt play and kill you.
The national championship game against Kansas in 2008. Memphis actually fouled but the refs didn't call it and Kansas tied the game with a three. Cal got criticized for not fouling. But they did try to foul.
OP would have absolutely hated Dean Smith's 4 corners "offense".
Cal told his memphis players to foul in the championship game against kansas. They didn't and it cost him a title.
Also, cowardly, IMO. Barely remember it. Was actually living in Wilmington, NC, as a kid, during that.
Well, Stansbury did it in 2010 and it worked against him and he acted like a child, lol.
Dean Smith was great at the 4 corners and making sure his players got into fake classes.
I do agree the 4 corners was cowardly. Fouling down 3, not so much. Using that logic, teams should never foul late in games and a team should just be able to run the shot clock out a couple times to end a game.
IDK, maybe I'm naïve, but I see a difference. As stupid as this sounds, and I get it... I see one as strategy, and the other as a cheap way to steal a win. Again, probably on the wrong side of this, but JMO.
If you can foul when you're down to extend the game, you can foul when you're up to prevent a three attempt. Zero difference.
i think it depends on the game. although fouling risks losing and not fouling doesn’t.
You foul them before they can jump into you trying a 3, or kicking their leg out trying a 3. Do anything to keep it out of the hands of the referee because those effwads have a spread they gotta cover. Let the team advance the ball to half court, then foul them with a steal attempt.
The only ones cryjng are the leg kickers, the head jerkers, and the floppers.
The only ones cryjng are the leg kickers, the head jerkers, and the floppers.
This. It’s no different than purposely fouling in hopes the other team misses FTs in order to attempt to cut into the deficit.
I hate fouling to prevent a score in general. Wish we had continuation in college. If you get fouled and immediately take the shot and score it, that should count. If we had that then you can’t foul up 3 because if the guy can get a shot off after the foul and makes it well now you’ve put yourself in a situation where you can lose.
If it's a rule, use it.
But I would like to see a rule change that somehow negate this, in an effort to keep games exciting and enhance the sport. Like, if you're up by 3, and its under 30 seconds, you can't foul the offensive team in the back court.
But there's so many ways that can get messy, so IDK.
But I would like to see a rule change that somehow negate this, in an effort to keep games exciting and enhance the sport. Like, if you're up by 3, and its under 30 seconds, you can't foul the offensive team in the back court.
But there's so many ways that can get messy, so IDK.
You are stupid if you don't foul. It cost calipari a national title when he was at Memphis because he didn't foul.
Is it cowardly to foul when down by 2, other team has the ball and a few seconds left? I think not.
I think the missed free throws were more of an issue... They had their chances prior to Chalmers' heave.
Calipari would very likely enjoy a second championship IF he had fouled a Kansas player. Why give them a chance to tie in that situation (Memphis was up by three)? Mario Chalmers hit the three, and Kansas went on to beat a (downtrodden) Memphis team who could not overcome the mental shock of losing that lead and monumental chance to win because they did not foul.
If my team were faced with this, down three at the foul line with seconds to go, I would have the shooter line up to one far side of the foul line--you would have to practice that. I have done that shooting myself and the ball comes off more predictably to the far side, making your chances a little better for knowing where the ball ends up. But, so far, I have not seen any attempted in this way.
I foul every time, or almost, depending on where the ball comes inbounds and how much time is left. It is not a cowardly way to win--competing is "war" and this is a tactic to win, definitely not a skewing of the rules or cheating your opponent, like doing something illegally in golf to improve your lie, for example. If you're a former Marine, you wouldn't have wanted to give your enemy any chance at beating...all is fair in love and war.
I get that it's within the rules but that doesn't make it 'good.' When the 4 corners were a thing, it wasn't good and we put in a shot clock to prevent that abysmal game tactic no one wanted to watch. Right now the block/charge isn't good for the game but its part of the rule set. Sure, the play to the rules, no problems with that, but rules need to change over time to keep the game interesting and fun to watch and avoid cheap tactics. Fouling to prevent a shot, to me anyway, is one of those cheap tactics that we should look to legislate out of the game.
I don't know but I do know the "spirit of competition" has been integral to hundreds of moral victories.
GBB!
This is exactly what I was thinking. Dean Smith took a far inferior team and beat UK all within the rules of the game at the time. It was a cheap *** way to win a game.
Your take on this an interesting one. Rules can and should be tweaked for the betterment of the game. Understand your point, but the situation is very rare. I don't think legislation will deal with something so rarely seen.
Tactics like the four-corners (yes, quite a gutless tactic but within the rules) brought about a sweeping change because of its negative effect on the game as a whole. In the interest of having the sport continue as a popular spectator sport, we had to specify a shot clock, and have gone through several changes to tweak that. Coaches could have used this every game, so it had widespread effects. Fouling in this case happens so rarely, it will likely never be taken out of the coach's hands as a tactic used to win a game. It is surprising how many coaches might differ on this--in my mind, I foul most every time.
Only once--against Mississippi State in the 2010 SECT--have I ever seen this backfire. Kentucky was extremely lucky to convert one free throw and then miss the next after MSU fouled us up three. Bledsoe shot and missed after tracking down the FT miss, but Cousins rebounded with a quick "put back" to tie the game. We won in overtime. I have never seen this successful since or before. You do what it takes within the rules to win.