an example of fouling down 3 gone wrong

[pillardean]

With these factors, fouling ND at the end of regulation would've been too risky, or would've occurred too early.
It would've been too risky because if we had fouled within the last 5 seconds, as the proponents of the fouling strategy say that you must, we would be fouling too close to when ND was looking for their attempted 3 pt. shot and would risk sending ND to the line for 3. There was too much going on, with bodies all over the place, for anyone to think foul after the 1st three was attempted. It was an airball, ND player does a touch pass to another ND player, who quickly flips it to Scott for the 3. I don't think its reasonable to think we could've fouled ND in the last 5 seconds of regulation as the game played and had the game end in our favor.
If we foul earlier to avoid the risk, there are more than 5 seconds left. Assume ND hits 2 and the lead is one, then foul us, so there is probably around 4 seconds left. Regardless of if MU hits FTs, that is too much time for ND to get a last look, and fouling then is too risky b/c you don't know when someone will pull up in the last seconds for a desperation attempt.

You can realistically foul without any time running off the clock in NCAA.  So there still could have been 5 left.  Plus we were in the 1 and 1. 

[Marquette84]

The end of regulation played out almost exactly like the Georgetown game a few years back.  

GTOWN
Contested three from the corner - James hacked down on the ball, Wallace pretended to go up for a shot - gets and makes three free throws - lose in OT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy8EEVN523s

Wallace should have been fouled on the floor anytime after he crossed the mid-court line, before he got into the corner in shooting position.   

ND
Contested three from the corner - DJO (I think) played straight up and forced a terrible shot - shot was so bad it landed in Ben Hansbrough's lap - Hansbrough kicks it out for a three at the buzzer - lose in OT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFARFK9WiHs

The time to foul was not when Abromitas was in the corner--it was when Jackson drove into the lane.  63% FT shooter inside the lane and making no attempt to shoot--and even if it was a shooting foul, two points wouldn't have done it for ND--they needed three. 

But watching the clip, it sure looks like we were trying to defend even a 2 point shot.  Look at Hayward step in and stop Tory Jackson's drive.  Why didn't Hayward step out of the way and tempt Jackson with a clear open lane to the basket.  Let him lay it up.  2 points does nothing for them.

Ditto with DJO--when Abromitas flashed under the basket, DJO should have gone across and prevented him from getting back out to the 3 point line. Yes, a two point shot would have been wide open, but again, so what?   I also have to fault Acker and Cuby for leaving their men in 3 point land.  They shouldn't have gone after the rebound--they should have been on those outside shooters like glue.  Even if you fouled denying the outlet pass,  it doesn't hurt becuase ND needed three.

[avid1010]

But watching the clip, it sure looks like we were trying to defend even a 2 point shot.  Look at Hayward step in and stop Tory Jackson's drive.  Why didn't Hayward step out of the way and tempt Jackson with a clear open lane to the basket.  Let him lay it up.  2 points does nothing for them.

Ditto with DJO--when Abromitas flashed under the basket, DJO should have gone across and prevented him from getting back out to the 3 point line. Yes, a two point shot would have been wide open, but again, so what?   I also have to fault Acker and Cuby for leaving their men in 3 point land.  They shouldn't have gone after the rebound--they should have been on those outside shooters like glue.  Even if you fouled denying the outlet pass,  it doesn't hurt becuase ND needed three.

EXACTLY....if MU is not smart enough to defend a situation in which the only shot they need to worry about is a 3, what makes anyone confident that they could foul without the shooter being in the act of shooting, or miss a box out on a free throw, etc.  It's not that Buzz is free of blame for this, I just think his thought process is understandable, but MU's execution on defense was terrible.  I'm sure I can dig up some facts to support the idea that when you play as many close games as MU has you're going to win about as many as MU has...

[StillAWarrior]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFARFK9WiHs

I just watched that for the first time.  I feel like I need to throw up.

[NersEllenson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy8EEVN523s

Wallace should have been fouled on the floor anytime after he crossed the mid-court line, before he got into the corner in shooting position.   



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFARFK9WiHs

The time to foul was not when Abromitas was in the corner--it was when Jackson drove into the lane.  63% FT shooter inside the lane and making no attempt to shoot--and even if it was a shooting foul, two points wouldn't have done it for ND--they needed three. 

But watching the clip, it sure looks like we were trying to defend even a 2 point shot.  Look at Hayward step in and stop Tory Jackson's drive.  Why didn't Hayward step out of the way and tempt Jackson with a clear open lane to the basket.  Let him lay it up.  2 points does nothing for them.

Ditto with DJO--when Abromitas flashed under the basket, DJO should have gone across and prevented him from getting back out to the 3 point line. Yes, a two point shot would have been wide open, but again, so what?   I also have to fault Acker and Cuby for leaving their men in 3 point land.  They shouldn't have gone after the rebound--they should have been on those outside shooters like glue.  Even if you fouled denying the outlet pass,  it doesn't hurt becuase ND needed three.

I think this topic needs to be given a rest...we were in perfect position to foul in the Georgetown game..a far different position in the ND game.  As I watch the replay of our D on Notre Dame..we played very good D..period.  Forced an airball - had the shot NOT been missed that badly..which was the result of very good D by DJO..we would have won this game, under a normal rebound situation..we held the dominate rebounding positions on all of ND's players..we got burned because the shot came up so short and dropped right in Nash's hands.  Furthermore, if Cooby hadn't left Carelton Scott..to instinctually go after a loose ball..there would have been little difference in the shot attempt by Scott..Cooby gives up about 8 inches to Scott..he would have caught and shot over Cooby (as Cooby wouldn't have even had a slight running start to maximize his leap).  As for not fouling Jackson as he penetrated the lane...he was defended well..and to have fouled him at that point there are still 8 seconds left in the game..plenty of time for ND to foul us and for us to choke a few free throws at the other end.  To nitpick this possession is kind of silly, as at some point basketball becomes a very instinctual game..as I saw Jackson penetrate...Cooby picked up Zar's man (Scott), there were no open 3 point shooters..DJO didn't really leave Abromitis..to be critical of that defensive possession is really pretty dicey at best.

4 things needed to happen for ND to win:
Abromitis airballs the 3 badly
Zar knocks it out of Nash's hand
Deflects right to Hansborough
Who happens to flip it to Scott
Scott has to hit a contested 22 foot 3.

[jmayer1]

Avid, fair enough.  Nevertheless, I've provided two analysis on it as well based on mathematical probabilities.  Both say the same thing....this isn't just about the end of the ND game, we've had this opportunity at least 2 other games and it seems we don't want to go with the statistical more beneficial play, which is to foul.

Here is a article (really more of a blog entry) one of the truehoop guys wrote about this.  He believes there shouldn't be a hard and fast rule but it should depend on the situation. 

However, within the article, he cites a study done by Wayne Winston which specifically refutes the two articles Chicos posted by Lawhorn and Annis.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/6992/up-three-without-the-ball-to-foul-or-not-new-insight

I am generally of the opininion a team should foul, but only under 5 seconds.  However, sometimes that's a hard thing to do, unless the other team in inbounding.

There is definitely no hard and fast rule on these situations.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I said several times it is not a hard and fast rule, but I believe in the numbers and would take my chances by fouling.  Boeheim and others agree.  Others do not agree.  That's cool.

As for Winston, you should read his book.  He does not say that he's against the idea of fouling, in fact Mark Cuban has him on retainer down on the Mavericks for these very types of things. 

He believes more research needs to be done.  Two guys took a crack at it, he doesn't agree with their methodology...yet in his own book he says he is still trying to acquire enough data to determine one way or another.