The worst grade school coach isn't dumb enough to call for a foul at the end

[Pakuni]

After thinking about the foul, it was clear that Crowder just grabbed him. That is a definition of an intentional foul. While it is not likely that a foul like that is called, it is what should have been called. Result SF gets two free throws and the ball. The play was risky and stupid.

If that's your definition of an intentional foul, wouldn't every one of USF's fouls in the final minute or so also qualify?
Fortunately, that's not really the intent or spirit of the intentional foul rule.

[TallTitan34]

Kentucky was down 3 and Miss St. fouled them with 4.9 seconds left.  Bledsoe made first free throw, missed second on purpose.  John Wall gets rebound, misses 3 pointer, and DeMarcus Cousins put back to go to OT.  KY wins in OT.

Similar situation to Nova game yesterday - it can go either way with either strategy.

4.9 seconds is a ton of time.   No way that could be done in 1.1 seconds.

[TallTitan34]

The reality is if we foul or don't foul, we have a 99.99% chance of winning at that point.

There is a 100% chance half the people on scoop are going to be pissed whatever decesion is made haha. 

[Pakuni]

Sorry, it was the reverse and KY won because of it.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2790426/sec_tournament_2010_goes_to_kentucky.html?cat=14

Kentucky was down 3 and Miss St. fouled them with 4.9 seconds left.  Bledsoe made first free throw, missed second on purpose.  John Wall gets rebound, misses 3 pointer, and DeMarcus Cousins put back to go to OT.  KY wins in OT.

Similar situation to Nova game yesterday - it can go either way with either strategy.

You're correct. But that sequence in the Kentucky game took almost 5 seconds, not 1.1. In fact, from the time of Bledsoe's missed FT to when Wall tracked down the rebound, more than 1.1 seconds expired. Then another 1.4 seconds expired before he got off a shot. Then nearly two more seconds expired before Cousins collected the rebound and knocked down the put back.
see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL8IWtESJaA

This is why I'm suggesting that USF collecting an offensive rebound and getting a shot off in 1.1 seconds, while certainly not impossible, isn't really any more likely than a made shot from their own free-throw line. As the Kentucky game shows, just getting control of the ball in less than 1.1 seconds - much less getting control and putting up a shot - is very unlikely. A whole sequence of events (shot missed, poor blocking out, ball rolls off the rim just so, ball leaks out to Wall, Wall is in the right place at the right time) had to go just right just for Kentucky to touch the ball in over 1.1 seconds.
I'm not arguing for or against the strategy, so much as pointing out that at that stage of the game, it didn't make a difference. Either way, USF tying the game was an extremely unlikely outcome.

[TJ]

You're correct. But that sequence in the Kentucky game took almost 5 seconds, not 1.1. In fact, from the time of Bledsoe's missed FT to when Wall tracked down the rebound, more than 1.1 seconds expired. Then another 1.4 seconds expired before he got off a shot. Then nearly two more seconds expired before Cousins collected the rebound and knocked down the put back.
see video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL8IWtESJaA

This is why I'm suggesting that USF collecting an offensive rebound and getting a shot off in 1.1 seconds, while certainly not impossible, isn't really any more likely than a made shot from their own free-throw line. As the Kentucky game shows, just getting control of the ball in less than 1.1 seconds - much less getting control and putting up a shot - is very unlikely. A whole sequence of events (shot missed, poor blocking out, ball rolls off the rim just so, ball leaks out to Wall, Wall is in the right place at the right time) had to go just right just for Kentucky to touch the ball in over 1.1 seconds.
I'm not arguing for or against the strategy, so much as pointing out that at that stage of the game, it didn't make a difference. Either way, USF tying the game was an extremely unlikely outcome.

In all of this we lost sight on what I was replying to in the first place.  AMU84 said "Jay Wright = Dumb for not fouling; Buzz = Dumb for fouling".  I replied to that to say that the situations were vastly different, and that he was wrong to compare them and come to his conclusion.  I then stated that I didn't think Wright made a bad decision yesterday and presented a situation (poorly at first until I clarified later) similar to the Nova game where the team fouled and still lost.  My point being that neither strategy is going to be perfect.  Then it got twisted a little and people got the impression that I was comparing the KY game to our game yesterday.

I still think last night was a bad decision, but I'm not going crazy about it.

[TJ]

According to ESPN.com's Play-by-play, USF had only used two time outs the entire game.  Is that accurate?  If so, USF would have been calling a TO as soon as the player hit the floor.  Then they would have tried to get the ball to a player considerably closer to the basket than 80+ feet.  I don't like giving them a chance to run an inbounds play with 1.5 seconds left; that's a catch and one dribble and a shot.  It's not difficult to imagine that this could have been a 25' shot.  I like the call to foul.

I don't remember, but in other threads people have stated that ESPN is wrong and that they didn't have any timeouts left.

However, even if they had one, nothing is instantaneous.  The player has to land, Stan Heath has to yell "Time Out", a ref has to hear him and react by blowing his whistle.  None of that takes a lot of time, but I think it would put a significant dent in 1.8 seconds.

[dwaderoy2004]

Plus this is college, not the nba.  so even if they had a time out (which they didn't) the ball doesn't automatically advance to halfcourt with a timeout.  That's why in college you always see guys dribble past half court towards the benches and then call timeout.

[TJ]

Plus this is college, not the nba.  so even if they had a time out (which they didn't) the ball doesn't automatically advance to halfcourt with a timeout.  That's why in college you always see guys dribble past half court towards the benches and then call timeout.

Why in the world does the NBA have that stupid rule?

[tower912]

To prolong games and give the losing team a chance. 

[StillAWarrior]

Plus this is college, not the nba.  so even if they had a time out (which they didn't) the ball doesn't automatically advance to halfcourt with a timeout.  That's why in college you always see guys dribble past half court towards the benches and then call timeout.

I understand that.  But you would agree, I assume, that it'd be better to run a play with 1.8 seconds left than try to have the ball 80+ feet -- even if you were running that play from the baseline (KY/Duke with 2.1 seconds left comes to mind).

Btw, based on several responses here, I'm assuming they did not have a TO remaining.

[RawdogDX]

You realize making a running 88-footer is nearly impossible?

says who?  No way is this 1-1000.  I'm sure there are guys who can launch up a 88 foot shot and hit it 2% of the time.  And if you can advance the ball to 60 feet there are plenty of guys who probably shoot well over 5%.

I think the chances of them scaling over the back of butler and crowder, grabbing the ball, and making the shot without fouling is way harder.

[Benny B]

Just in case anyone wants to know... after the game, I talked to Benny A in the parallel dimension where Crowder didn't foul.  USF missed the half-court heave.

So this was going to be a W, foul or not.  The right decision is the one that yields the desired outcome.  In this case, either decision was the "right" decision.

[oldwarrior81]

I think the chances of them scaling over the back of butler and crowder, grabbing the ball, and making the shot without fouling is way harder.

but with 52 seconds to go, Poland had made a FT, missed the second, and USF had the ball on an inbounds under the basket after Gilchrist knocked the rebound out of bounds off of Otule.

Quite rare to expect that outcome twice in a minute, but if I was USF, I'd take that chance over a rebound, dribble and 75-footer.

[oldwarrior81]

but just 50 seconds earlier, Poland had made a FT, missed the second, and USF had the ball on an inbounds under the basket after Gilchrist knocked the rebound out of bounds off of Otule.

Quite rare to expect that outcome twice in a minute, but if I was USF, I'd take that chance over a rebound, dribble and 75-footer.

[dwaderoy2004]

I understand that.  But you would agree, I assume, that it'd be better to run a play with 1.8 seconds left than try to have the ball 80+ feet -- even if you were running that play from the baseline (KY/Duke with 2.1 seconds left comes to mind).

Btw, based on several responses here, I'm assuming they did not have a TO remaining.

Oh yeah, i would agree.  I was just pointing this out, as it seemed like some people may have thought this was the case.  I think in this situation, no matter how many timeouts USF had, the best play was to let them heave an 80 footer.  worst case scenario, you tie and go to OT.  by fouling, you crack the door, ever so slightly, towards losing in regulation, where they make the 1st, miss the 2nd, get the putback and 1.  But, as many people pointed out, i think win probability went from 99.99% to 99.95% by fouling there.  I have a much bigger problem with djo crapping his pants at the line, especially longterm.

[BrewCity83]

Oh yeah, i would agree.  I was just pointing this out, as it seemed like some people may have thought this was the case.  I think in this situation, no matter how many timeouts USF had, the best play was to let them heave an 80 footer.  worst case scenario, you tie and go to OT.  by fouling, you crack the door, ever so slightly, towards losing in regulation, where they make the 1st, miss the 2nd, get the putback and 1.  But, as many people pointed out, i think win probability went from 99.99% to 99.95% by fouling there.  I have a much bigger problem with djo crapping his pants at the line, especially longterm.

No, worst case scenario is we foul the shooter as he's heaving the 80 footer, it goes in, and he makes the FT for a 4-point play.  Game Over.

BTW, with under 2 seconds and 90 feet away, I'd defend about 2 feet away and let them try the heave--NO FOUL.  With any more time, I agree with what Buzz did.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Just in case anyone wants to know... after the game, I talked to Benny A in the parallel dimension where Crowder didn't foul.  USF missed the half-court heave.

So this was going to be a W, foul or not.  The right decision is the one that yields the desired outcome.  In this case, either decision was the "right" decision.

          nice.

[MULS1999]

[deleted]

[MULS1999]

Honestly, fouling at the end was a poor decision with that little time on the clock and USF out of timeouts.  There's really no defense for it.  I realize that it "worked out," but focusing on the result rather than the correct process is a mistake.

As many have pointed out, with no timeouts and 1.8 seconds left on the clock, the rebounding USF player was never likely to get past 3/4 quarter court before attempting a desperation heave.  Whatever the probability of him making it to the tie the game (certainly 1% or less), it's about the lowest percentage play imaginable.  By fouling, Buzz increased the odds of USF scoring three points (through a make-miss-tip) by at least 5x -- and maybe more.  That's a major error.

I think Buzz's primary miscalculation was the amount of time on the clock.  If there are 4 seconds left on the clock, which would allow the rebounding player to advance the ball to half court or beyond, then it's a defensible (even "good") play.  With between 2 and 4 seconds, it's borderline.  But having to rebound, turn, shoot and score from the opposite basket in 1.8 seconds is nearly impossible.  By deciding to foul, Buzz was doing to opposite of playing the percentages. 

Two other good points that have been made and bear repeating:

1.  By electing to "intentionally" foul, there was a risk that Crowder -- if he hadn't made a sufficient play on the ball -- may have been called for an intentional foul.  It's a relatively low risk, but it's certainly higher than zero.  And an intentional foul actually brings losing in regulation back into the equation. 

2. By electing to foul, there was a real risk that the foul could have occurred in the act of shooting.  With only 1.8 second left, there is a very small window in which to make the foul before the act of shooting has begun.    Again, this risk is probably greater than the risk of the player making the 3/4 shot in the first place.

We may have escaped this time.  But if Buzz ever finds himself in identical position, I hope he handles it differently.

[StillAWarrior]

As many have pointed out, with no timeouts and 1.8 seconds left on the clock, the rebounding USF player was never likely to get past 3/4 quarter court before attempting a desperation heave.  Whatever the probability of him making it to the tie the game (certainly 1% or less), it's about the lowest percentage play imaginable.  By fouling, Buzz increased the odds of USF scoring three points (through a make-miss-tip) by at least 5x -- and maybe more.  That's a major error.

There was a 2.47% chance the player would make the 3/4 court shot.  There was a 1.92% chance that they'd make the first FT, miss the second FT and get a tip in.  Thus, fouling increased our odds of winning by 0.55%.  As long as we're going to manufacture statistics, I figured I'd play too.

[ErickJD08]

MULS is absolutely right.  One other wrinkle that was not pointed out was that you open up the possibility of actually losing in regulation.  Make free throw and some fluke (tip out for three or a put back with another foul).  It was really a poor decision.  On that play, you let them rebound, jump the passing lanes and let them heave one.  If they make it, so be it, OT.  It was bad.

[Pakuni]

Honestly, fouling at the end was a poor decision with that little time on the clock and USF out of timeouts.  There's really no defense for it.  I realize that it "worked out," but focusing on the result rather than the correct process is a mistake.

As many have pointed out, with no timeouts and 1.8 seconds left on the clock, the rebounding USF player was never likely to get past 3/4 quarter court before attempting a desperation heave.  Whatever the probability of him making it to the tie the game (certainly 1% or less), it's about the lowest percentage play imaginable.  By fouling, Buzz increased the odds of USF scoring three points (through a make-miss-tip) by at least 5x -- and maybe more.  That's a major error.

Besides your imagination, upon what are you relying for these figures?
A guy who studied this during the 2009-10 season found that there were 52 times a team down three with under 10 was fouled and attempted to tie the game off the rebound of a missed second free throw. There of them succeeded. That's 6 percent. But that's with as many 10 seconds remaining. Are you suggesting that there's no difference between being able to accomplish this with 1.1 seconds versus as many as 8 or 9 seconds?
Interested in knowing how you're deriving your figures.

By electing to "intentionally" foul, there was a risk that Crowder -- if he hadn't made a sufficient play on the ball -- may have been called for an intentional foul.  It's a relatively low risk, but it's certainly higher than zero.  And an intentional foul actually brings losing in regulation back into the equation.  

There was no chance,  under those circumstances, that any official would have called that an intentional foul. As I said earlier, if that's an intentional foul, then USF committed about four of them in the final minute or so last night.
This is so far outside the spirit of the rule that it's not worth discussing.

was a real risk that the foul could have occurred in the act of shooting.  With only 1.8 second left, there is a very small window in which to make the foul before the act of shooting has begun.    Again, this risk is probably greater than the risk of the player making the 3/4 shot in the first place.

Unless Fitzpatrick was going to try a two-handed backwards heave over his head, the foul was not going to be committed in the act of shooting.

[Lighthouse 84]

No, worst case scenario is we foul the shooter as he's heaving the 80 footer, it goes in, and he makes the FT for a 4-point play.  Game Over.

BTW, with under 2 seconds and 90 feet away, I'd defend about 2 feet away and let them try the heave--NO FOUL.  With any more time, I agree with what Buzz did.

+1

[Blackhat]

I played with a guy who practiced and made FULL COURT shots damn near every practice.   Heaved it like throwing a discus.  


This call is debatable but I can see why some have reservations over this foul when in the past Buzz has always played for D instead of fouling up 3.  

[Benny B]

This whole thread reminds me of people who like to say you're more likely to be struck by lighting twice than win the lottery.  The truth is that you're much more likely to never know anyone that has experienced either.

In that 1.8 second situation last night, a team in MU's position is going to win the game 99.999% of the time.  Honestly, who cares about which outcome is more likely to lead to a .001% chance of USF winning?