xavier/k. st. XU is fouled as shooter attempts 3....B/C he knew the foul was coming! Smart play by xavier, stupid play by ksu
EDIT:
Well it worked out for KSU, but it took two overtimes. Seeing how animated Frank Martin is, I wouldn't want to be in the huddle after that foul on the attempted 3. yikes.
K-State and Frank Martin just showed why you might not want to foul when you're up 3.
The refs blew it, but that's always a risk.
Not as simple issue as it's been portrayed on the board.
Yep, horrible foul and well as a terrible non-call by the ref. Holloway was definitely fouled before the shot attempt.
Perhaps fouling up 3 is not as cut and dry an issue as some make it out to be?
I don't understand everyone upset by the "no call". If the foul is that obvious then it is an intentional. You don't get to pick when a ref calls a foul.
I think it was a good non-call just cuz Len Elmore was pissed about it. Man I can't stand that guy.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on March 25, 2010, 11:06:40 PM
I think it was a good non-call just cuz Len Elmore was pissed about it. Man I can't stand that guy.
Five minutes into every game I can tell who he wants to win. Is there a more biased announcer?
Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 25, 2010, 11:00:24 PM
I don't understand everyone upset by the "no call". If the foul is that obvious then it is an intentional. You don't get to pick when a ref calls a foul.
Umm no. A foul is intentional if there was no legitimate attempt by the offender to play the ball or player, whether or not it was actually intentional is irrelevant. The "no call" had a legitimate attempt, and was a clear mistake by the ref.
What a game. Crawford and Holloway are ENFUEGO............
Quote from: MarquetteDano on March 25, 2010, 11:08:34 PM
Five minutes into every game I can tell who he wants to win. Is there a more biased announcer?
Can't believe he was just arguing that was a flop/defensive foul. A clear offensive foul with the shoulder - if you're gonna' call anything.
Argh...I should just mute it.
Quote from: bma725 on March 25, 2010, 11:09:51 PM
Umm no. A foul is intentional if there was no legitimate attempt by the offender to play the ball or player, whether or not it was actually intentional is irrelevant. The "no call" had a legitimate attempt, and was a clear mistake by the ref.
Yes, I understand the ruling on an intentional foul. The point is that it is hard to clearly foul someone and ALWAYS get the call. How many times is incidental contact not called. It is subjective and the ref let it go. To complain about a foul not being called when the offensive player was still able to continue (didn't fall down, didn't lose the ball)... I really don't get that when you are the one who initiated the contact.
Hey Len Elmore-- how many times out does Xavier have left?
Quote from: karavotsos on March 25, 2010, 11:31:29 PM
Hey Len Elmore-- how many times out does Xavier have left?
Besides the "times" out, I swear he must have been slobbering. Sounded terrible.
I agree with everyone about the Len Elmore sentiments. Here's something that will blow your mind: he graduated from Harvard Law school!
Are you sure it wasn't an honorary degree?
Quote from: muhoosier260 on March 26, 2010, 12:31:31 AM
I agree with everyone about the Len Elmore sentiments. Here's something that will blow your mind: he graduated from Harvard Law school!
Yep, with classmater Marc Marotta. Must have had a decent intramural basketball team.
This isn't really "gone bad" since it was poor decision making as to when they fouled. If you're going to foul while up 3, you can't let the guy with the ball get inside of 30 feet away from the basket.
Quote from: muhoosier260 on March 26, 2010, 12:31:31 AM
I agree with everyone about the Len Elmore sentiments. Here's something that will blow your mind: he graduated from Harvard Law school!
So did someone else that hasn't exactly impressed many of late....
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2010, 07:29:59 AM
So did someone else that hasn't exactly impressed many of late....
and I don't see that one changing for the better anytime soon...
Quote from: muhoosier260 on March 25, 2010, 10:56:10 PM
xavier/k. st. XU is fouled as shooter attempts 3....B/C he knew the foul was coming! Smart play by xavier, stupid play by ksu
Incorrect. The team wanted to foul. They executed that plan. They have no control over whether or not the ref decides to properly call the foul. The ref failed his job and missed the foul before the shot. That's not a "stupid play" on KSU's side.
I did like the fact that in OT1 they decided not to foul and Crawford buried a 35 footer. So they did it both ways, and gave up the lead both times. BTW... Clemente and Pullen are fantastic.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 26, 2010, 07:54:24 AM
Incorrect. The team wanted to foul. They executed that plan. They have no control over whether or not the ref decides to properly call the foul. The ref failed his job and missed the foul before the shot. That's not a "stupid play" on KSU's side.
The ref didn't fail. The defender - Clemente, I believe - failed by giving a half-hearted effort to foul (despite Elmore saying he "wrapped both arms around" Holloway). If you watch it in full speed, it hardly looked like anything. Holloway didn't even seem to break stride. If you're going to foul someone in that situation, you have to make it clear, obviously without being flagrant. If he partially stepped in front of Holloway and tried to poke the ball out, he would have gotten the call. Lazily reaching out with both hands and tapping him with one of them isn't necessarily going to get you the call.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 26, 2010, 07:54:24 AM
Incorrect. The team wanted to foul. They executed that plan. They have no control over whether or not the ref decides to properly call the foul. The ref failed his job and missed the foul before the shot. That's not a "stupid play" on KSU's side.
The referee not calling it correctly is a variable that needs to be taken into consideration.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 26, 2010, 07:54:24 AM
Incorrect. The team wanted to foul. They executed that plan. They have no control over whether or not the ref decides to properly call the foul. The ref failed his job and missed the foul before the shot. That's not a "stupid play" on KSU's side.
The "stupid play" would be the next guy who tried to wrap up Holloway in a way that allowed him to get into the act of shooting. Brilliant play by Holloway, but that is what can happen when you tell a team not to play good, tough defense and instead do something they are not comfortable with instead.
When the fouling up 3 strategy works, it looks very smart (and extremely frustrating for the other side) but I think this goes to show that it is not a settled issue and each coach can play it out the way they think is best.
for some reason I believe alot of people here would be singing a different tune had Buzz decided to foul when up 3 against ND. ;D
It's funny, in listening to the game on the radio, the analyst on Sunday for Pitt vs Xavier was Pete Gillen (former Xavier coach)....he said to foul when Xavier was up 3 on Pitt.
Last night's game on the radio, not sure who the analyst was, but another former coach, also said to foul.
Both games on the Westwood One Radio Network
Go figure.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2010, 09:35:23 AM
It's funny, in listening to the game on the radio, the analyst on Sunday for Pitt vs Xavier was Pete Gillen (former Xavier coach)....he said to foul when Xavier was up 3 on Pitt.
Last night's game on the radio, not sure who the analyst was, but another former coach, also said to foul.
Both games on the Westwood One Radio Network
Go figure.
Xavier chose not to foul...but they won anyway.
I think it's become pretty clear that there's no right or wrong way to handle that situation. It's the coach's preference. If MU had come away with the errant shot they forced at the end of the ND game, this thread probably wouldn't exist.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 26, 2010, 07:29:59 AM
So did someone else that hasn't exactly impressed many of late....
Really? I thought there was a pretty strict no politics rule here.
On point: I am in favor of fouling but it clearly is not a cut and dried case as some make it out to be. I would have to guess it is close to 50/50 in terms of college coaches who foul and college coaches who don't.
It seems like more coaches foul in the NBA but I would think that's the result of having so many great shooters.
Of course, I have no hard data to back up either of those guesses.
The best part of the strategy failing KState was the reaction of Frank Martin. Put him in a class with Bobby Gonzalez as the MOST ANNOYING coach in High-Major Ball. Not surprised he's a Huggins disciple. That guy just screams..DOUCHE.
And yes, Len Elmore was annoyingly in favor of KState last night....it actually shocked me in some ways that he was so pro-KState.
Well Frank is in a class by himself now because our buddy Gonzo is no longer a high major coach.
I think this just shows that there is no one set of rules. We might not always win playing straight up defense, but also not everyone wins when fouling. I like Buzz's reasoning of us not being the greatest rebounding team. The part of the fouling strategy is you can lose the game as we saw with Mississippi State when Wall almost won the game on a 3 pointer. I just think that making the team come down and rush quickly to try to find a 3 point shot, leads to many rushed, contested shots or sometimes not even getting a shot up. The problem with us is that not only were our rebounders small, but the guys guarding the 3 were also small so when Acker and Cooby would contest the 3's, the shooter still was able to get a decent look off them.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on March 26, 2010, 09:38:55 AM
Xavier chose not to foul...but they won anyway.
I think it's become pretty clear that there's no right or wrong way to handle that situation. It's the coach's preference. If MU had come away with the errant shot they forced at the end of the ND game, this thread probably wouldn't exist.
I think I've said something similar....two schools of thought....neither one is a slam dunk case....some coaches like it and some coaches don't. I prefer to foul, others do not. I've shown two studies that suggest fouling is the way to go. Someone else presented a study that said the opposite.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 26, 2010, 07:54:24 AM
Incorrect. The team wanted to foul. They executed that plan. They have no control over whether or not the ref decides to properly call the foul. The ref failed his job and missed the foul before the shot. That's not a "stupid play" on KSU's side.
Its a bonehead play b/c as the clock ticked down and xavier got closer to the three point line, its obvious he's going to attempt a three. I realize the amount of time between when the first 'foul' wasn't called and when xavier attempted a three was mb 1 or 2 seconds, but at that point when the foul wasn't called, JUST PLAY DEFENSE. That is stupid.
They didn't execute the plan, b/c the plan was not to send xavier to the line for a chance to tie the game, it was to foul to send them to the line for 2. If I'm Frank Martin and I make up my mind that I'm going to foul, I'm doing it right at half-court, not at the hash mark which is what happened...even if it puts an extra two or three seconds on the clock. Then I tell the team, if you can't foul them at half-court, play straight up and make xavier hit a tough shot. Admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, but that is what these guys get paid to do.
By fouling and not playing defense, you're putting the game in the hands of the ref. It doesn't make sense to me why you would want to do that.
Quote from: muhoosier260 on March 26, 2010, 04:28:00 PM
Its a bonehead play b/c as the clock ticked down and xavier got closer to the three point line, its obvious he's going to attempt a three.
They didn't execute the plan, b/c the plan was not to send xavier to the line for a chance to tie the game, it was to foul to send them to the line for 2. If I'm Frank Martin and I make up my mind that I'm going to foul, I'm doing it right at half-court, not at the hash mark which is what happened...even if it puts an extra two or three seconds on the clock. Then I tell the team, if you can't foul them at half-court, play straight up and make xavier hit a tough shot. Admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, but that is what these guys get paid to do.
By fouling and not playing defense, you're putting the game in the hands of the ref. It doesn't make sense to me why you would want to do that.
Disagree. The coach can only control his players, not the ref. The players executed the plan.
And I'm not sure where you're getting that they weren't playing defense, like they had just laid down. 5 guys were on the court, they were defending -- and fouled the opposition twice -- and they did, as you say "make xavier hit a tough shot" .. as witnessed by the fact that they did NOT hit a shot at all.
Oh, and gosh. The
winning coach agreed with that strategy, and called exactly that.
I thought that refs were the worst I've seen in the tourney/Sweet 16 in a long time. Xavier caught a break but they got hosed throughout the game in my opinion.
Also, Jacob Pullen has really come a long long way. His progression from a junior in high school to a senior in college reminds me of Jerel's progression. Excellent game overall.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on March 26, 2010, 07:13:24 PM
Disagree. The coach can only control his players, not the ref. The players executed the plan.
And I'm not sure where you're getting that they weren't playing defense, like they had just laid down. 5 guys were on the court, they were defending -- and fouled the opposition twice -- and they did, as you say "make xavier hit a tough shot" .. as witnessed by the fact that they did NOT hit a shot at all.
Oh, and gosh. The winning coach agreed with that strategy, and called exactly that.
If you gleaned that I said they laid down then you missed my point. After the initial no call they should've played defense which they didn't do b/c they fouled on the three. agree to disagree i guess.
Quote from: muhoosier260 on March 28, 2010, 05:58:07 PM
If you gleaned that I said they laid down then you missed my point. After the initial no call they should've played defense which they didn't do b/c they fouled on the three. agree to disagree i guess.
Sorry to belabor the point, but that's just not what happened.
"After the initial no call they should've played defense which they didn't do because they fouled on the three."?? .. The initial no-call was 1 ..
maybe 2 seconds prior to the 3 attempt. They didn't stop doing anything in those 1-2 seconds. And how do you get "not playing defense" from "because they fouled on the three"? Contesting (and touching) a guy shooting a 3 does not equal "not playing defense."
in that situation the way i see it is you either foul, or play defense, and thus not foul. they fouled after the initial no call when they should not have, thats all i'm saying. i know it was 2 seconds after, i watched the replay before posting days ago, and its hard to make the perfect defensive play in that circumstance, but ksu made about the worst play.