fouling to win the game

Suntan Superman

WC's Resident Samoan

Hockey you're put at a disadvantage. You lose that player for 2 minutes. You gain "physical presence" which is only established for so long. At least when I played hockey our coach told me to be physical but to NOT draw a penalty. Only thing I can think of for that is fighting. The only time I fought in a hockey game I got a game misconduct and had to sit out 2 weeks of practice and miss 5 games. Different in the NHL but still you have to win the fight.

I think a Safety has adequate punishment for "penalty" losing the ball and giving up 2 points is adequate in my mind.

Baseball working the count is like Intentional Fouling? I don't quite get that reference. Elaborate?

It's a pretty pussy strategy. Had the almighty defensive powerhouse Kansas Jayhawks played their "STELLAR TEAM DEFENSE" we might not even be having this discussion.

Also interestingly enough Necro... isn't fouling kind of admitting that you can't play adequate enough defense to win the game? I thought those people in the stands PAID for those tickets to SEE the teams play. Not give up and foul people because the defense can't win them the game in the closing seconds.


I guess fouling to win a game isn't that far fetched of a strategy in America....

I mean we did BOMB for PEACE didn't we?

EDIT: I'm pretty much done with this argument as either way I know Blade's going to come back with some retort about Kansas blah blah. I know he loves Kansas. He knows I hate Bill Selfish. I don't think we're going to be getting anywhere so if he feels the need to "Win" so he can pat himself on the back. He may do so if he wishes.

Freak

Dude, you act like Memphis-Kansas was the biggest crime in college sports history.

You're right that Kansas would have liked to defend Memphis in those first 38 minutes to the best of their abilities -- but they didn't. So they were down nine points with two minutes left -- and there's virtually no realistic way to not foul and still have a shot at winning in that situation. They did what thousands of teams before them have done, and what thousands more will do in the future -- they played strategy, and Memphis choked at the line. It's not like fouling intentionally is some heinous shit, or dangerous like another poster was saying.

Honestly, it's pretty clear to me that the main reason why you're getting worked up over this is because of some college basketball politics I have no idea about -- "Bill Selfish" or whatever the hell you mean. Which I don't care about.

As for my examples in other sports, I think they're all valid. In hockey, I'd rather my team serve a two-minute roughing penalty at the beginning of the first period and set a dominant physical tone for the rest of the game than be the intimidated team at the other end. In football, I'd rather take a safety on 4th down with an 11-point lead than have to punt from the back of my own endzone and risk having it blocked and recovered for a TD. In baseball, I'd rather my pitcher intentionally not put every ball over the middle of the plate, even at the risk of giving a guy a free pass here and there.

Just like in basketball, where it's risky to put the other team at the line with an uncontested chance of scoring points.

Freak

By the way, this comment is now officially the biggest, most hilarious stretch of comparisons in the history of KYN/JVN/Monks/WC/Simon's manseed.

Jayman

Super Moderator

I don't understand why we are comparing college basketball to hockey or football.

In those 2 sports, hitting is legal. Hitting someone intentionally in basketball is against the rules, so why do it? You can check in hockey, and you can tackle in football.

My point is that the team should be trying to steal the ball away from the other team, not just shoving a shoulder into them.

What if...a team is down by 2 and doesn't have possession. They need to get the ball before time expires so they go for the intentional foul to give them free throws. The kid gets too excited and anxious (remember, these aren't professional athletes, these are college kids...it could happen) and goes to foul but hits him a little too hard and injures the guy. Then what? It would probably be a pretty big news story and cause for major debate on whether or not this tactic is legal.

Another question: when watching the final minute or two of a basketball game, is it exciting for you guys to watch the following: inbound, foul...free throw, free throw...posession. foul....free throw, free throw....possession. Last minute buzzer shot...NO! game over. All with 50 commercial breaks in between.

It makes me want to tear my fucking hair out.

Necro

VIP Room Moderator

It is more exciting to me to see if the person will choke at the line, or come through with the free throws. if the person will hit the last second three to win it for there team. It creates so many historic moments its not even funny...

Dr. Giganto

I agree with the anti-fouling people in that it is an inherent flaw in the game that a team can use a "violation" to their benefit.

HOWEVER, being that those are the rules of the game, it is sound strategy to take advantage of that flaw in the game. Kansas implemented that strategy, and benefited as a result.

When you're losing late in the game, in order to win, you need to maximize your number of possessions. This is even more important in college, where the shot clock is 35 seconds instead of 24. If Kansas had just "played defense" when they were down 9 with 2 minutes left, they wouldnt have had the time to come back, unless they:

A. Stopped Memphis on EVERY possession

and

B. Scored on EVERY possession

The fact that free throw shooting was Memphis's biggest weakness made it all the more effective a strategy.

Is it cheap? Yes. But does it work? Yes.

BTW, I've absolutely fallen in love with Derrick Rose. I really hope somehow the Knicks land him. And then dont trade him for like Bonzi Wells or somebody like that.

Dr. Giganto

Also, as for Memphis's play in OT, the fact that Joey Dorsey had fouled out played a major part in Memphis losing the game. Kansas DOMINATED in the paint in OT, and perhaps Kansas would not have had some of the easy buckets that they had if they had Dorsey in the game

chops

My point had nothing to do with this game in particular. To me it is such an easy fix but it may make the end of games more boring. What is an NFL team to do when they are down by 14 points without the ball and 2 min left. They lose. They don't keep jumping offsides to stop the clock in hopes of getting a cheap chance to win the game. Yes it is part of the strategy, yes if I was a coach I would foul, my point is it shouldn't be a part of the game. Why not let the team who was fouled have the option of taking the ball in from out of bounds. NFL teams can decline penaltys if they think it is advantageous why shouldn't basketball teams. Yes games would be decided earlier, but it would be decided by how they play on the court, not how they shoot from the line.

Dr. Giganto

I agree with you. It is unfortunate that the rules of the game dictate that it can be played that way

Freak

Honestly, I don't see how this would solve anything.

Even if a team chose to inbound instead of shoot the free throws (which would show a huge lack of faith from the head coach, considering the risk of throwing it away), the losing team would still find a way to foul at the next possible opportunity. It would be exactly what happens now, only it would happer over and over and over again, with stoppages every two seconds.