MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: tower912 on January 11, 2017, 08:57:34 PM
-
Am I the only one surprised there wasn't some kind of hack-a-Matt going on? Or have I missed a rule change that gives two shots and the ball in that scenario?
-
They didn't have much of a chance. Matt wasn't holding the ball very often.
-
Am I the only one surprised there wasn't some kind of hack-a-Matt going on? Or have I missed a rule change that gives two shots and the ball in that scenario?
Matt was 11 for 18 from the FT line coming into this game. That is 61%.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/3906524/matt-heldt
Assume SH has the stats but not the color. You don't "hack away" when he is above 60%. Additionally, they had a lot of players that did not have fouls to give.
Finally, chick is correct above. He did not have the ball a lot.
-
Am I the only one surprised there wasn't some kind of hack-a-Matt going on? Or have I missed a rule change that gives two shots and the ball in that scenario?
As already noted.
He barely had the ball
-
I guess I am looking for clarity. If they would have bear hugged Matt 50 ft from the ball in order to send him to the line instead of KR, would MU have gotten two shots and the ball? If not, it seems to me that could have been a viable strategy. And 61% is preferable to >90% from a SHU standpoint.
-
They didn't have much of a chance. Matt wasn't holding the ball very often.
He doesn't need to touch the ball in a hack-a Heldt scenario. Sounds like most here don't understand the concept.
It means fouling Heldt every time MU has the ball - no matter where he is on the floor and no matter who has the ball.
I don't believe asy rule has been put in to stop it from happening.
-
I guess I am looking for clarity. If they would have bear hugged Matt 50 ft from the ball in order to send him to the line instead of KR, would MU have gotten two shots and the ball? If not, it seems to me that could have been a viable strategy. And 61% is preferable to >90% from a SHU standpoint.
Pretty sure that's an intentional foul and MU would get the ball back. Or am I thinking of NBA rules?
-
Pretty sure that's an intentional foul and MU would get the ball back. Or am I thinking of NBA rules?
That is not the case in the NBA. It should be - as it would end the practice, but is not.
-
I kept waiting for MU to foul the Hall and deny a 3 pt. attempt.
-
I kept waiting for MU to foul the Hall and deny a 3 pt. attempt.
The way the game was being called, I kept waiting for SHU get the gift phantom foul on the made 3 pointer, leading to a 4 pt opportunity.
-
The way the game was being called, I kept waiting for SHU get the gift phantom foul on the made 3 pointer, leading to a 4 pt opportunity.
Nah, they'd have missed the FT and then drilled another 3 for the 6-pt play.
-
Nah, they'd have missed the FT and then drilled another 3 for the 6-pt play.
On a bank shot
-
The foul would be an intentional unless they were making a basketball play on him.
So if hes just standing there making no effort for position or ball and they foul. Its 2. Shots and ball.
-
The foul would be an intentional unless they were making a basketball play on him.
So if hes just standing there making no effort for position or ball and they foul. Its 2. Shots and ball.
With the way the game was called, if they would have done that, Matt might have been called for a foul.
-
On a bank shot
And another +1
-
I guess I am looking for clarity. If they would have bear hugged Matt 50 ft from the ball in order to send him to the line instead of KR, would MU have gotten two shots and the ball? If not, it seems to me that could have been a viable strategy. And 61% is preferable to >90% from a SHU standpoint.
The way those refs were calling the game any SH player tackling Matt away from the ball would not have been called. The only fouls allowed to be called by those 3 were blocking fouls and shooting fouls on drives. If it did not fall into those categories particularly if committed my someone it a blue uniform it was not going to be called. :P
-
To my knowledge, they changed the rule last year and that would be an intentional foul.
Could be wrong.
-
I kept waiting for MU to foul the Hall and deny a 3 pt. attempt.
Because them going to the line at the end of the game worked so well last time we played them...
-
I kept waiting for MU to foul the Hall and deny a 3 pt. attempt.
Fouling stops the clock and lengthens the game, giving Seton Hall more time to catch up and go ahead. Al liked to say that at the end of close games the enemy was no longer the other team, but the clock.
-
That is not the case in the NBA. It should be - as it would end the practice, but is not.
I thought the NBA changed the rules this year that if you commit an intentional foul (hack a whoever) in the last two minutes, then it's free throws and the ball. If it's done before the final two minutes of a quarter then it's just a normal foul. I think.
-
I kept waiting for MU to foul the Hall and deny a 3 pt. attempt.
The last thing I wanted to see was MU try to rebound on a SH freethrow again. Good move by Wojo.
-
I thought the NBA changed the rules this year that if you commit an intentional foul (hack a whoever) in the last two minutes, then it's free throws and the ball. If it's done before the final two minutes of a quarter then it's just a normal foul. I think.
Yeah, they did that a couple years ago.