Painter and Bennett made different choices. Discuss.
I think fouling is the correct option. Everything had to break right for Virginia. Make the first. Miss the second. Grab the rebound. Run a perfect play to get the tying basket.
I would rather defend that then defend a three point shot. It just didn't work this time.
Yep. Folks act as if it's a no-brainer to foul when up 3 with seconds to go, but the Virginia-Purdue game showed that it isn't.
Stuff happens in basketball.
The tying basket Diakite hit at the end of regulation could have just as easily been a scramble-situation 3 that won it for Virginia. That's why Majerus said to never foul up 3: It's just about the only way to lose a game with a 3-point lead.
I actually thought Painter's big mistake was that he had Grady Eifert rather than Trevion Williams on the FT lane trying to box out Diakite on Jerome's FT miss. Williams -- Purdue's best rebounder in the game -- wasn't even on the floor as the team tried to secure the biggest rebound in decades for the program. Amazing.
And yes, Bennett decided not to foul up 3 even though Edwards had been pouring in 3s and Cline, who had been a big-shotmaker in previous games, also was on the floor. It turned out to be the winning strategy.
All in all, I'm still an advocate for fouling up 3 in the closing seconds, but I never criticize a coach for doing it the way Bennett did.
This might be one of those areas where a coach has to go by his gut in the moment.
Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on March 31, 2019, 08:50:51 AM
I think fouling is the correct option. Everything had to break right for Virginia. Make the first. Miss the second. Grab the rebound. Run a perfect play to get the tying basket.
I would rather defend that then defend a three point shot. It just didn't work this time.
Agreed. Run that sequence a dozen times and UVA probably converts once. It was an amazing play, but also a pretty uncommon outlier.
If a team has struggled on the defensive glass, I don't foul up three. UVA had what, 15 offensive rebounds before that?
I mentioned this in another thread, but after the first free throw is made, Purdue should have blatantly committed a lane violation on every next attempt until a make.
Quote from: MUDish on March 31, 2019, 09:29:39 AM
I mentioned this in another thread, but after the first free throw is made, Purdue should have blatantly committed a lane violation on every next attempt until a make.
That's a really interesting strategy. I think the only alternative would be for UVa to commit a simultaneous lane violation, which would trigger a jump ball, but I'm pretty sure Purdue had the arrow.
Sticking to the under 5 seconds would have changed the outcome as well.
Quote from: MUDish on March 31, 2019, 09:29:39 AM
I mentioned this in another thread, but after the first free throw is made, Purdue should have blatantly committed a lane violation on every next attempt until a make.
Brilliant.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 31, 2019, 09:37:07 AM
That's a really interesting strategy. I think the only alternative would be for UVa to commit a simultaneous lane violation, which would trigger a jump ball, but I'm pretty sure Purdue had the arrow.
My bad, I meant to add that Purdue did have the arrow, and you're right that if Virginia did simultaneously commit a violation, it'd have been Purdue ball.
Quote from: MUDish on March 31, 2019, 09:29:39 AM
I mentioned this in another thread, but after the first free throw is made, Purdue should have blatantly committed a lane violation on every next attempt until a make.
Been done, ref threatened a technical foul. Legal?
http://coachbobwalsh.com/2015/03/24/the-intentional-violation/
Purdue's biggest issue was how they over attacked after the miss.
It's really hard in the moment to realize but they sent too many guys towards the ball in the backcourt. It left Diakite wide open.
Quote from: WarriorDad on March 31, 2019, 09:57:16 AM
Been done, ref threatened a technical foul. Legal?
http://coachbobwalsh.com/2015/03/24/the-intentional-violation/
Good read, love Walsh's stuff. Thanks for sharing. Honestly, I think that's a case where the ref needs to make the call by the books and then advocate for change.
It depends
Quote from: tower912 on March 31, 2019, 08:43:44 AM
Painter and Bennett made different choices. Discuss.
I have always favored letting the guys play. Two out of three times the three doesn't go in.
Fouling is the better odds play. But that second free throw can be a pinball which cannot be controlled.
Let them earn it by hitting the three
Quote from: Jon on March 31, 2019, 01:12:21 PM
I have always favored letting the guys play. Two out of three times the three doesn't go in.
Fouling is the better odds play. But that second free throw can be a pinball which cannot be controlled.
Let them earn it by hitting the three
As I said earlier, Crash, I wouldn't argue with this at all. I lean the other way, but I don't think either is "right" or "wrong."
Quote from: MU82 on March 31, 2019, 02:32:55 PM
As I said earlier, Crash, I wouldn't argue with this at all. I lean the other way, but I don't think either is "right" or "wrong."
Kinda like oral sex. All that matters is the finish.
I saw one earlier this year that shocked me. A team was up 3 with about 10 secs left. 1st FT made. next missed, offensive rebound, kick for 3. Team wound up losing by 2 or 3, despite trying to foul up 3 with 10 secs left.
But I've always been a believer in the strategy
Quote from: Jon on March 31, 2019, 04:33:10 PM
Kinda like oral sex. All that matters is the finish.
There's a great retort to this, but I'm summoning up all of my energy to keep from making it ...
Quote from: MUDish on March 31, 2019, 09:29:39 AM
I mentioned this in another thread, but after the first free throw is made, Purdue should have blatantly committed a lane violation on every next attempt until a make.
I like that, Dish. Never thought of it.
Quote from: MUDish on March 31, 2019, 09:29:39 AM
I mentioned this in another thread, but after the first free throw is made, Purdue should have blatantly committed a lane violation on every next attempt until a make.
I'm a dumb - but how do they commit a lane violation after knowing whether its a make? Wouldn't they necessarily have to jump into the paint before knowing, and if they commit a lane violation on a make, doesnt UVA get an additional shot?
Quote from: MUBurrow on April 01, 2019, 01:52:59 PM
I'm a dumb - but how do they commit a lane violation after knowing whether its a make? Wouldn't they necessarily have to jump into the paint before knowing, and if they commit a lane violation on a make, doesnt UVA get an additional shot?
That's the point. The lane violation is null if the FT goes in. So the shooter would get a FT in perpetuity until he made one. The theory is that when you are trying to hit the rim but miss, eventually you will make one accidentally. Of course you don't have to hit the rim if their is a lane violation, you get another shot anyway.
I think the first team to try that probably could get away with it, but if the NCAA was smart, they would just quickly institute a rule that says three lane violations during one shooter's trip to the FT line will result in a two shot technical, and that would stop it.