Foul up 3!!!
- Thread starter hamcoboiler
- Start date
Or at least jam the 3 point line. That defensive possession seemed to lack a clear plan.
Totally agree - got to get a foul there, especially on Turner who made a couple long circus shots already
Aww...that's cute...you forget who we are. We are Purdue basketball. If we are up 3 and foul, the refs will come up with some cockamamie shit like intentional foul...two free throws and the ball for Tennessee. Or the Tennessee player jacks up a behind the back over the head between the legs shot while being fouled and of course it goes in.
Up by 3 with 18 seconds left. UT in the single bonus. Would this have been a good place to take a TO and discuss strategy? Maybe you play sound defense until about 10-12 seconds left, jamming the perimeter. Under 10 go ahead and foul a non-shooter. Maybe you sub Eastern in for PJ for more length?
Painter should have learned this after the loss to Little Rock. Average coaching does not = great teams.
I guess what irritates me is CMP claims to be this basketball nerd and yet, in these situational instances where the coach can dictate the highest percentage play, he doesn't execute! It's the definition of insanity, keep doing the same thing expecting different results. What about Ewing/Taylor too? Why is PJ out there defending a last second heave? I just can't even anymore. I just expect the prayer 3's to be answered against us.
Has Painter ever said anything about not believing in that approach? I understand being frustrated about it as a fan, but I can also see a coach like Painter refusing to play like that. Personally, I hate seeing any team foul in that situation because I think it’s just cheap. If my opponents play hard enough for 39 minutes and fifty seconds to give themselves a shot, I don’t believe in using a cop out strategy to rob them of their opportunity to win or extend the game. I’d want my team to go out and execute on defense to earn the win. I can see Painter being the kind of coach that has a similar mentality.
And yes, I have seen IU get burnt by this and had no problem with Crean letting it play out.
And yes, I have seen IU get burnt by this and had no problem with Crean letting it play out.
I fully understand what you are saying. Ethically it seems wrong...strategically it "generally" makes sense. Still, there were a LOT of plays that need addressed than that single play...because if the focus is not on those things that need addressed...another team won't even need that last second shot.
I see all sides to this...very easily could have been a win for Purdue. Its over, but Purdue gave this one away several times on things Purdue "COULD" control. It doesn't change much for Purdue other than Purdue will no doubt have a harder path in the tourney...unless Tennessee beats Villanova...and then it won't hurt Purdue as much
Ethically wrong? Come on TJ, you're better than that. If we're going to use that thinking, then fouling when you are trailing is also ethically wrong because you should have played better the whole game so you weren't losing. I've never heard a single person say that.
This is the right play and one that more and more coaches are starting to employ. It absolutely has nothing to do with ethics or cheapening the game.
Yeah I’m more than a little bit lost on that one too. If any D1 coach says they will not strategically foul even if it increases their chance of winning, he should be fired on the spot. I’m confident that had nothing to do with Painter’s strategy. More likely fear of an offensive rebound off a missed FT.
This!!!
Imagine they make the first and rim out the second. With the way we were rebounding, I would be worried.
Seems we haven't learned from the past. Didn't the loss to Arkansas Little Rock teach us anything??? I can accept playing it out and not fouling when it is just a non-critical game (if there are any), but in the case of a must win game I think you got to foul. Sort of like the intentional walk in baseball - sometimes it is the right strategy. If there was ever a must win game in November - this was it. Well, actually today's game is it now. Maybe now that we have been burned by the 3 yet again, perhaps come tournament time in March we won't let it happen again should the situation present itself. If you foul there is the chance you miss a rebound or have trouble inbounding the ball, miss your free throws at the other end, etc., but I think the risk is not as bad as the risk of a made 3.
back when Keady was the coachm he believed in this strategy and I disliked it then. I foul before letting a team shoot a 3.
But even then it ties the game not lose the game. The chances of them making the first, missing the second, getting the rebound and scoring is much less than simply making the 3 point shot. It's really not that complicated.
Actually a free throw is easier to make than a 3 pointer. It’s not difficult to miss a free throw and they were outrebounding us enough that the odds of them getting the ball back was high. Once they have the ball and down 2, they could have actually won the game by hitting a 3 or getting an and one.
So, even though there are more steps, the chance of them hitting a contested three seems to be enough to go that route. A 3 ties the game, your scenario brings in the chance they could win the game.
With PJ as one of the defenders, it was never going to be that contested of a 3. Not knocking the kid, it’s not his fault he’s 5’-9”.
I simply said I understand how some may see that ...a gentlemans battle. I also said that strategically, it more often than not made sense to foul. Fouling when behind typically is not a single play that almost guarantees an end result adn so they are different. It takes several of those and miscues by those fouled many times as well for it to be effective.
FWIW, I don't believe in teaching 3 seconds in teh lane either...and that is a rule...I think you have a min of 4 seconds almost every time down and it is foolish for posts to worry about the 3 second rule and so I understand taking advantage of the rules when able...
Rebounding off a missed free throw is much different then in the course of regular play. Also, if correctly executed there is very little time left even if you do get the rebound. Even if you are lucky enough to get the rebound you still have to score with congestion in the lane.
I get why some coaches choose to let it play out. There is very little questioning of them from the media if it goes wrong (like yesterday). If they choose to foul and the highly unlikely happens they are up for more scrutiny.
I'm not second guessing CMP, I'm first guessing him. I was hollering for a foul from 10 seconds left until the guy took the shot. I was also hollering at the end of the ALR game. Fouling is the correct play and has the highest chance of the desired outcome ( a win).
Problem with that is what if they call an intentional foul? I remember that happening when Gene was here and it cost us.
I don't know what the right answer is, but the way the game was called it wouldn't of shocked me to see it happen. Besides, take care of any of the other areas and we don't need to foul and win the game
So you are agreeing that the correct play is to foul because it almost guarantees the desired result? But some how that could be construed as being less than ethical? I'm sorry, but I'm missing something. How would anyone come to that conclusion? Does that also mean calling a time out to "ice" a shooter is unethical? How about fouling a player that you know is not a good free throw shooter?
I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just trying to see how anyone (not you) would come to that conclusion. You said you could see how someone would think that, I can't. So I'm trying to get where that would come from.
For the record, I don't think CMP made that decision with ethics in mind. He simply made a mistake.
Sure that is possible, but highly unlikely. Especially if this strategy is practiced. It's not something you decide to do without practice and discussion before the season even starts. We had this exact same discussion after the ALR game. Obviously CMP doesn't believe it is the best strategy. I'm simply suggesting that's a mistake.
I agree completely, it never should have come to that. However, it did so I would prefer we implement the best strategy to actually win the game. As TJ already said, it's the strategy that most likely get you the desired outcome.
No problem...those are all the same and yet different than preventing a single play from beating you by using the rules to take advantage of the loop hole in the rules. Nobody making rules would intend to take away a reasonable offensive play due to the rule book I don't think. Teh game has been made offensive and I would expect an adjustment to this rule in the final minute of so down the road. I could foul...but I couldn't deliberately put the wrong player to the line if the refs were confused to keep them confused. I agree that Matt did NOT foul with ethics in mind.
Now, relative to the question...I think you foul on the dribble....low..waist going for the ball and taking the body with you. I think they bend to prevent the steal and you have to foul BEFORE they intend to shoot. If the offensive player "thinks" you are going for a foul and heaves it...he probably has a better shot of making FTs than making the 3. I would expect the rules to be changed in the final minute just due to what many know would result in a single play that gives almost no chance of winning or tying a game behind the arc due to the rules and NOT the players. If I remember right Matt wanted to foul in the Little Rock game with about 7 seconds to go, but he shot it early (figuring a foul I'm sure) around 10 seconds I think.
One things for certain...you hate to allow the refs to make a call and beat you..which some would and could wiht a deliberate foul and then the continuation play behind the arc for three Fts...
Fair enough.
Since were talking about doing some "different" things within the rules. Did you see the LSU player intentionally miss a free throw in order to get another shot? There was at least 2 minutes still to play, he makes a shot and gets fouled. He goes to the line for his 1 free throw and intentionally shoots it off the front of the rim, jumps into the lane, gets his own rebound and gets fouled again. Makes both of those free throws. So he "gained" 1 point.
Bilas said he had never seen that done with that much time on the clock, I hadn't either. Everyone on the lane was so caught off guard they didn't even block him out. It was over in Maui this week.
I understand both sides of this argument, but I tend to agree with Dry and Nage and take your chances fouling under 10 seconds. I think sometimes (not referring to yesterday's game), I think teams don't overplay the three-point line enough....it's not the usual defense, so I can understand it's difficult to get in a different mindset.....although teams practice this scenario a lot.
I didn't get to hear Coach Painter's post-game comments, but I would guess he thought Tennessee got a better look than he would have liked....c'est la vie.
While we're discussing this foul shot miss scenario......it reminded me of that crazy end-of-game action in the 2008 Big Ten Tournament between Minnesota and Indiana. Anyone remember that? It wasn't quite the same scenario because Indiana was down two late, but what followed was relevant to what can happen at the FT line on misses:
Indiana was down two under 5 seconds, and Eric Gordon gets fouled. He missed the first, so he then had to miss the second.....which he did.....and DJ White broke through and tipped the miss in to tie AND he was fouled. White's at the line now with like 3 seconds left for one shot......he clanks it left and is able to get to the rebound, and he was fouled AGAIN......still tie game. He misses the first, makes the second, and Indiana is now up one.....having gone 1/5 from the line in the last few seconds.
That's when Minnesota threw the long in-bound pass to Blake Hoffarber who was able to turn and get off the game winner at the buzzer.
Absolutely one of the craziest endings I've seen to a game.
I didn't get to hear Coach Painter's post-game comments, but I would guess he thought Tennessee got a better look than he would have liked....c'est la vie.
While we're discussing this foul shot miss scenario......it reminded me of that crazy end-of-game action in the 2008 Big Ten Tournament between Minnesota and Indiana. Anyone remember that? It wasn't quite the same scenario because Indiana was down two late, but what followed was relevant to what can happen at the FT line on misses:
Indiana was down two under 5 seconds, and Eric Gordon gets fouled. He missed the first, so he then had to miss the second.....which he did.....and DJ White broke through and tipped the miss in to tie AND he was fouled. White's at the line now with like 3 seconds left for one shot......he clanks it left and is able to get to the rebound, and he was fouled AGAIN......still tie game. He misses the first, makes the second, and Indiana is now up one.....having gone 1/5 from the line in the last few seconds.
That's when Minnesota threw the long in-bound pass to Blake Hoffarber who was able to turn and get off the game winner at the buzzer.
Absolutely one of the craziest endings I've seen to a game.
I don't know cmp's feeling on it. I think it's cheap watching the other team foul our bigs 24/7, making the refs call it every time. If we get them back by giving them a 1 and 1 then so be it.
I thought I heard him sometime last year saying he wanted to try and foul in that situation....I could easily be mistaken......can't remember when it was.
Didn't someone hit 1 ft and missed the second an an threw it out to Kendall for a 3 and a win in the final seconfs?
Yeah....that was in the Tomb. I think Kendall Stephens three sent it to OT. Might have been Ray Davis or AJ Hammons.....need to check.
_________________________
Update.....it was Jon Octeus.....he missed both when Purdue was down three.
http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/011715aaa.html
Last edited:
Similar threads
