Acker's Foul

[The Pickle]

Could someone please explain the logic of us fouling Cincy in the backcourt when they inbounded the ball at half court with 6 seconds on the shot clock.  I realize they then just turned it over but c'mon.  WTF?...

[Rocco]

Ive been trying to justify it, but I can't.  It was intentional, Buzz wanted it from what I could tell. Weird

[ChicosBailBonds]

Could someone please explain the logic of us fouling Cincy in the backcourt when they inbounded the ball at half court with 6 seconds on the shot clock.  I realize they then just turned it over but c'mon.  WTF?...

And Buzz clapping in the background so I have to think he called for that.  Bizarre.

[Pakuni]

Are you guys for real? You think Buzz called for that?
Yikes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Are you guys for real? You think Buzz called for that?
Yikes.

Sure looked like it to the three of us and the announcers as well.

[Rocco]

Yeah, he clapped enthusiastically, as if to justify it

[Lighthouse 84]

I can't understand that either.  6 seconds left on the clock, they're probably taking a bad shot at the buzzer and instead, they get a fresh 35.  Maybe Rosiak can get an answer from Buzz

[GGGG]

The only thing that I can think of is that Buzz was being sportsmanlike because Cincy was only left with six seconds left on the shot clock after the clock stopped for about 10 seconds.

[squirrel]

His enthusiastic clapping was for Acker's hard on the ball defense, not for the foul.  Acker clearly was told to get up on Vaughn, play really tight defense, and got called for a touch foul.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

I think he was just urging them on and not applauding a stupid foul
I see other coaches do the same

[77ncaachamps]

Was he aiming for a 2 for 1?
Or was he trying to create a foul to get us into the 1-and-1 position (which would aid us since they shoot FTs poorly)?

I guess the latter because I recall the announcers remarking that MU still had X # of fouls to give before the 1-1...

[The Pickle]

Was he aiming for a 2 for 1?
Or was he trying to create a foul to get us into the 1-and-1 position (which would aid us since they shoot FTs poorly)?

I guess the latter because I recall the announcers remarking that MU still had X # of fouls to give before the 1-1...

That could be it and makes the most sense but given the game situation it was still dumb...

[Dr. Blackheart]

The logic went that we needed to start fouling to get to the 1-1 bonus as we were down at that point (and UC is a horrible FT shooting team).  Not the right time to do it with only 6 on the shot clock and the ball inbounded into the backcourt.  Worse, with the foul the shot clock resorted to 35.  That is a long distance with a short time to get off a good shot.  

That said, there was confusion there at that TO as the game and shot clocks weren't working--again.  The refs had go to the monitor and saw that they needed to deduct significant time.  It wasn't adjusted, I don't believe,  until the players hit the floor.    In the end, UC threw it out of bounce for a turnover, but that was a head scatcher.  

[reinko]

those clown announcers also claimed that MU was employing a hack-a-shaq philosophy.  

It was a touch foul, Buzz was clapping as to say "ok guys, move on" not "woo hoo, great foul in the backcourt with 6 seconds to go on the shot clock under 3 minutes in a game that could determine our NCAA tourney chances"

C'mon y'all

[Daniel]

those clown announcers also claimed that MU was employing a hack-a-shaq philosophy.  

It was a touch foul, Buzz was clapping as to say "ok guys, move on" not "woo hoo, great foul in the backcourt with 6 seconds to go on the shot clock under 3 minutes in a game that could determine our NCAA tourney chances"

C'mon y'all

LOL - well said!

[Pakuni]

those clown announcers also claimed that MU was employing a hack-a-shaq philosophy.  

It was a touch foul, Buzz was clapping as to say "ok guys, move on" not "woo hoo, great foul in the backcourt with 6 seconds to go on the shot clock under 3 minutes in a game that could determine our NCAA tourney chances"

C'mon y'all

Thank you.

It was an encourage or eviscerate moment for Buzz, and he chose to encourage. Nothing more to it.

[Lennys Tap]

Thank you.

It was an encourage or eviscerate moment for Buzz, and he chose to encourage. Nothing more to it.

Agreed. It was a dumb play by Acker but jumping all over him does no good in that situation.

[flash]

The foul really made no sense at all, but we were bailed out by their turnover so it really doesnt matter.  Buzz was clapping because of the defensive effort by Mo. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

those clown announcers also claimed that MU was employing a hack-a-shaq philosophy.  

It was a touch foul, Buzz was clapping as to say "ok guys, move on" not "woo hoo, great foul in the backcourt with 6 seconds to go on the shot clock under 3 minutes in a game that could determine our NCAA tourney chances"

C'mon y'all

So, on his radio show with Homer as he did at his post-game presser, Buzz said this was an planned foul out of the time out in order to get to the bonus more quickly--the team's fifth at 3:04.  So, unless Buzz was covering for Mo, which is doubtful, this was the intent of the coaching staff in the huddle.  Granted, as I said earlier, there was clock confusion as to how much time was left on the clocks after the refs went to the monitor during the TO.  Four UC possessions passed until the 6th foul at 43 seconds left...the 7th and bonus happened 1 second later which was a smart play by Acker to foul a bad FT shooter.  

So just to clear the air, Mo did not make a dumb foul at 3:04...but he made a heads up play at 43 seconds.  The coaching staff logic?  That is debatable...although, both plays involving Mo, to be fair, all worked out to MU's advantage.  Still a head scratcher to me on the strategy at 3:04.  We can clear Mo's name here though--who has been incredibly mistake free all year.

http://www.gomarquette.com/blog/