Coaching Decisions

[kshoe]

How can any coach not foul at the end of a game when he's up by 3? I've seen a lot of basketball but have never seen a college team make the first FT, miss the 2nd, get the rebound and make the put-back. I've seen a fair number of daggers like the one Lisch put on Richmond today.

I wonder if next time he's in that situation, the Richmond coach will foul. Better yet, ask Sean Miller if he'll foul after the Xavier choke job against Ohio St. in the round of 32 two years ago.

[billikenfan05]

Majerus has said he wouldn't foul

[crymdg2]

Completely agree kshoe. The shot Kevin made was incredible, but he would never have even had the opportunity to make it had they fouled.

[courtside]

Different coaches hold different theories.

If you intentionally foul, and you do not make it look unintentional you can get an intentional foul called, two shots and the ball.

If you foul, many coaches aren't confident about securing the rebound, and also about a loose ball within feet of the basket. Many still take their chances on 20 plus footers, simply because of distance. What if your rebounder gets beat for position, what if your guy falls down, what if the ball gets tipped and batted into the basket or to an opposing player for an easier shot? These all go into consideration. While the 3 point shot is not as difficult today for more and more players, it is still a less percentage shot.

Some coaches also get concerned about fouling a guy who then goes into a 3 point shot after the foul, NBA continuation if you will, or if the foul is mistakingly on the 3 point attempt itself, that's 3 shots, often times with an 8 out of 10 chance with the shooter at the line if he's any good. Officials make mistakes too.

If you foul someone in the backcourt or way before a shot attempt, imo most coaches do not like the stoppage of time, because they are taught that all it does is extend the game. In recent years many teams have come back in the final minute to tie or win games from down 8-10 points. It happens.

Too often teams are told not to foul and by doing so they give too much space for a makeable shot. Also, too many times a defensive player fouls way too late, after the shot attempt is in motion, and even catches the player after the shot, but still getting the 3 shot foul called.

In a situation like Lisch today, you dive in at all costs for the reach and the ball. At worst it's FT's with a second or two left, and you force a good shooter to intentionally miss and hope for rebound and put back. Richmond's problem was being soft and allowing Lisch to split the defense, afraid to foul, and Lisch was all alone for a very makeable three.

When kids are told not to foul, often times they freeze up and play poor defense.

[willie]

Different coaches hold different theories.

If you intentionally foul, and you do not make it look unintentional you can get an intentional foul called, two shots and the ball.

If you foul, many coaches aren't confident about securing the rebound, and also about a loose ball within feet of the basket. Many still take their chances on 20 plus footers, simply because of distance. What if your rebounder gets beat for position, what if your guy falls down, what if the ball gets tipped and batted into the basket or to an opposing player for an easier shot? These all go into consideration. While the 3 point shot is not as difficult today for more and more players, it is still a less percentage shot.

Some coaches also get concerned about fouling a guy who then goes into a 3 point shot after the foul, NBA continuation if you will, or if the foul is mistakingly on the 3 point attempt itself, that's 3 shots, often times with an 8 out of 10 chance with the shooter at the line if he's any good. Officials make mistakes too.

If you foul someone in the backcourt or way before a shot attempt, imo most coaches do not like the stoppage of time, because they are taught that all it does is extend the game. In recent years many teams have come back in the final minute to tie or win games from down 8-10 points. It happens.

Too often teams are told not to foul and by doing so they give too much space for a makeable shot. Also, too many times a defensive player fouls way too late, after the shot attempt is in motion, and even catches the player after the shot, but still getting the 3 shot foul called.

In a situation like Lisch today, you dive in at all costs for the reach and the ball. At worst it's FT's with a second or two left, and you force a good shooter to intentionally miss and hope for rebound and put back. Richmond's problem was being soft and allowing Lisch to split the defense, afraid to foul, and Lisch was all alone for a very makeable three.

When kids are told not to foul, often times they freeze up and play poor defense.

While all of the situations you describe are possible I have never seen them happen,on the otherside how many times have you seen shots like Kevin's tie games. I'm sorry but coaches who refuse to foul when the game is under 6 or 7 seconds deserve to lose.

[kshoe]

Majerus has said he wouldn't foul

I'll be screaming at Majerus the first time he doesn't foul in that situation.

Courtisde had a nice list of 1 in 100 or even less likely things that can go wrong. Sum them all up and you get nowhere near the same probability of the game getting tied as you do when you allow a team to get off any kind of a 3 point attempt.

Seems like coaches in all sports play not to lose more then they do to win. Letting a team get off a 3 point shot is playing not to lose. Fouling and using the rules to your advantage is playing to win.

[moytoy12]

While all of the situations you describe are possible I have never seen them happen...

Exactly. Theoretically, a lot of things are possible.

[courtside]

And theoretically these have been some of the reasons choose to foul or not to foul.

I've seen guys try to foul late in games only to have it called intentional. I've also seen games where guys have gone for the foul but they waited too long and did it on the shot and three free throws have been given. I've also seen where guys have secured the rebound on an intentional miss with opportunity for a short put back. Those things happen from time to time.

Different coaches have different views. Some coaches don't front the out of bounds passer and some do for different reasons. Fronting doesn't guarantee the lack of success of a long pass or any inbounds pass, and not fronting doesn't either.

[billikenblue]

Courtside--sorry but kshoe is right on ---many coaches are afraid of all these things but they rarely happen whereas many 3 pointers have been hit in this situation---most broadcasters are now in the belief that a foul makes more sense since they have seen so many 3 point daggers themselves--the coaches overthink this one because everytime I have seen a coach go for the foul it has never worked against them---

[Basketbill]

And theoretically these have been some of the reasons choose to foul or not to foul.

I've seen guys try to foul late in games only to have it called intentional. I've also seen games where guys have gone for the foul but they waited too long and did it on the shot and three free throws have been given. I've also seen where guys have secured the rebound on an intentional miss with opportunity for a short put back. Those things happen from time to time.

Different coaches have different views. Some coaches don't front the out of bounds passer and some do for different reasons. Fronting doesn't guarantee the lack of success of a long pass or any inbounds pass, and not fronting doesn't either.

And if the guy attmpts to foul and in this Case Lisch gets a shot up, if it goes........what would people say about the coach ...Face it you do not become a great team by using tricks an nuance to win a single game in the regular season....I say make a team beat you with a good play...

[Quality Is Job 1]

The Richmond student newspaper quotes Coach Mooney on this question:

“We discussed fouling there,” Richmond coach Chris Mooney said. “We thought they had not gotten any good looks at all.

“We decided not to [foul] and we had him trapped. He escaped and got himself as good of a look as he had all night. I take my hat off to him, and in retrospect we should have fouled there and made sure we got the rebound on the intentional miss, if there was one.”

I find it difficult to quarrel with either line of thinking. The problem was execution. A strong shoulder-to-shoulder double team that Lisch couldn't have stepped through would have secured the game for Richmond without fouling.

[cheeseman]

Different coaches hold different theories.

If you intentionally foul, and you do not make it look unintentional you can get an intentional foul called, two shots and the ball.

If you foul, many coaches aren't confident about securing the rebound, and also about a loose ball within feet of the basket. Many still take their chances on 20 plus footers, simply because of distance. What if your rebounder gets beat for position, what if your guy falls down, what if the ball gets tipped and batted into the basket or to an opposing player for an easier shot? These all go into consideration. While the 3 point shot is not as difficult today for more and more players, it is still a less percentage shot.

Some coaches also get concerned about fouling a guy who then goes into a 3 point shot after the foul, NBA continuation if you will, or if the foul is mistakingly on the 3 point attempt itself, that's 3 shots, often times with an 8 out of 10 chance with the shooter at the line if he's any good. Officials make mistakes too.

If you foul someone in the backcourt or way before a shot attempt, imo most coaches do not like the stoppage of time, because they are taught that all it does is extend the game. In recent years many teams have come back in the final minute to tie or win games from down 8-10 points. It happens.

Too often teams are told not to foul and by doing so they give too much space for a makeable shot. Also, too many times a defensive player fouls way too late, after the shot attempt is in motion, and even catches the player after the shot, but still getting the 3 shot foul called.

In a situation like Lisch today, you dive in at all costs for the reach and the ball. At worst it's FT's with a second or two left, and you force a good shooter to intentionally miss and hope for rebound and put back. Richmond's problem was being soft and allowing Lisch to split the defense, afraid to foul, and Lisch was all alone for a very makeable three.

When kids are told not to foul, often times they freeze up and play poor defense.

I have had the pleasure of knowing many h.s. BB coaches some have won state championships, some have won more games then most would ever dream of, a couple have actually been inducted into their state's HOF. I can tell you that everyone hates the idea of fouling in these situations. Virtually all would take their chances on the shot from the floor.

[courtside]

Courtside--sorry but kshoe is right on ---many coaches are afraid of all these things but they rarely happen whereas many 3 pointers have been hit in this situation---most broadcasters are now in the belief that a foul makes more sense since they have seen so many 3 point daggers themselves--the coaches overthink this one because everytime I have seen a coach go for the foul it has never worked against them---

I didn't pick a side. I merely pointed out the different thoughts of opinion on the subject. I never stated mine.

One of the challenges, is that coaches have so many more things to worry about than to take the time to effectively teach each kid how to do it and in what situations and how not to do it in other situations. I didn't say it couldn't be done. I'd say some of the things I mentioned happen more often than some people in this thread think.

I'm not really interested in what most broadcasters think, because often times I don't agree with a number of broadcasters on a number of topics. For every several broadcasters that I think are inept, play by play and analyst, there are a few that I think are capabable to good.

I also can add that I have seen situations where players go for the foul, and it doesn't get called and the play continues and an open shot has been knocked down because of it.

The topic was why would a coach or coaches pick another way, and I pointed out why some do.

[kevinfootes]

How can any coach not foul at the end of a game when he's up by 3? I've seen a lot of basketball but have never seen a college team make the first FT, miss the 2nd, get the rebound and make the put-back. I've seen a fair number of daggers like the one Lisch put on Richmond today.

I wonder if next time he's in that situation, the Richmond coach will foul. Better yet, ask Sean Miller if he'll foul after the Xavier choke job against Ohio St. in the round of 32 two years ago.

I tend to agree with you, but in this case you would be running the risk of a Willie Reed putback. He's getting better at that all of the time.

[Quality Is Job 1]

While we're talking about coaching, here's an interesting thought from a Richmond fan:

My wife noticed every time out Majerus immediately went and met with his team, Mooney spends most of his with his coaching staff trying to figure out what to do.

http://richmond.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid...099&style=2

[brianstl]

While we're talking about coaching, here's an interesting thought from a Richmond fan:

http://richmond.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid...099&style=2

That is one thing I have never understood and you see many staffs do it. I think you should know what you want to tell your team to do without having to spend a major portion of the time out figuring it out with your staff.