Have to admit that when it happened I was yelling to myself "what are you doing!!"

After reading these post I think it was the right call.

Not sure if Buzz told him to foul or not.

Would have beaten sips if we had done that.

When?

Texas closed to six with several minutes left. Fouling just would have been possessions with free points. You can only do this under like 30 seconds and thats stretching it

The only thing I like about this is if both teams start fouling at the end of games maybe we'll get some rules changes to the stupid amount of time ends of games take.

bobinator said:

---

I still don't really buy the math and you're counting way too much on your own free throw shooting for my liking.

---

His example has us shooting 50% and them shooting 100% and it's still impossible for them to win. I like the foul strategy. You lose much less often than letting them
Shoot 3s in my opinion.

I get it the math, I've updated my take from the start of this thread. I think the theory is fine and I see why NBA teams would do it.

But at this level I just think you're inviting chaos by adding possessions to the game. They could rebound a free throw miss, you can turnover an inbounds pass, etc. Which, again, we did three times last night anyway.

Just seems like tempting the basketball gods. And 26 seconds seems like a lot.

I get what you are saying but I'd much rather be in a free throw shooting contest when I'm up 6-8 with 40 seconds or less than let them come down and possibly hit a three and then all of a sudden if we turn the ball over once they have a chance to tie.

I feel like giving a team a 6-8 point lead with 40 seconds or under and then having a free throw contest is a near for sure win. I wouldn't do it if we were in a 1 for 1 situation. But if we are in the bonus then I like it.

I especially like it considering that most teams just give up layups within 4-5 seconds when they are up 6-8 points with under a minute. They don't even play defense and the other team wastes no time at all in scoring. So you might as well foul them bc there isn't a difference in time, plus you guarantee they don't get an open 3.

looks like someone was on the sidelines calculating the odds with a slide rule.

its one of those calls that you look like a genius if it works, if not, you look like an ass.

bobinator said:

---

The only thing I like about this is if both teams start fouling at the end of games maybe we'll get some rules changes to the stupid amount of time ends of games take.

---

Not sure what rule changes they could really make?

It's like the fake injuries in football: really hard to implement any rules that wouldn't just be wonky and screw up the way the game is played

I'm speculating, just based on how the body language played out, that Buzz did not order the foul, but an assistant did.

This leads me to conclude that this was a situation the coaching staff had considered in the lead up to the game and determined the best strategy was foul.

The assistant acted on it and signaled for the foul which took Buzz initially by surprise. Probably in the moment a call that should come only from the head coach. I suspect this communication has been discussed and clarified.

NyAggie said:

---

bobinator said:

---

The only thing I like about this is if both teams start fouling at the end of games maybe we'll get some rules changes to the stupid amount of time ends of games take.

---

Not sure what time changes they could really make?

It's like the fake injuries in football: really hard to implement any rules that wouldn't just be wonky and screw up the way the game is played

---

Agreed. People like to clamor for the Elam Ending but it sucks in reality.

Mikeyshooter said:

---

NyAggie said:

---

bobinator said:

---

The only thing I like about this is if both teams start fouling at the end of games maybe we'll get some rules changes to the stupid amount of time ends of games take.

---

Not sure what time changes they could really make?

It's like the fake injuries in football: really hard to implement any rules that wouldn't just be wonky and screw up the way the game is played

---

Agreed. People like to clamor for the Elam Ending but it sucks in reality.

---

The Elam ending sucks in those games that are decided at the free throw line. Very anticlimactic.

Gives way too much power to the zebras.

GrayMatter said:

---

Mikeyshooter said:

---

NyAggie said:

---

bobinator said:

---

The only thing I like about this is if both teams start fouling at the end of games maybe we'll get some rules changes to the stupid amount of time ends of games take.

---

Not sure what time changes they could really make?

It's like the fake injuries in football: really hard to implement any rules that wouldn't just be wonky and screw up the way the game is played

---

Agreed. People like to clamor for the Elam Ending but it sucks in reality.

---

The Elam ending sucks in those games that are decided at the free throw line. Very anticlimactic.

---

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an Elam ending?

NyAggie said:

---

GrayMatter said:

---

Mikeyshooter said:

---

NyAggie said:

---

bobinator said:

---

The only thing I like about this is if both teams start fouling at the end of games maybe we'll get some rules changes to the stupid amount of time ends of games take.

---

Not sure what time changes they could really make?

It's like the fake injuries in football: really hard to implement any rules that wouldn't just be wonky and screw up the way the game is played

---

Agreed. People like to clamor for the Elam Ending but it sucks in reality.

---

The Elam ending sucks in those games that are decided at the free throw line. Very anticlimactic.

---

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an Elam ending?

---

I guess I hadn't realized that there are no OT games in the Elam scenario. That takes away the excitement from the game.

From wiki...
Instead of a game clock, teams play to a target score, with the shot clock still enforced. The first team to meet or exceed the target score wins, so there is no overtime. The winning score can be a walk-off field goal (two-point or three-point) or a free throw. This format has been compared to how streetball is typically played, as street basketball games are typically played to a target score, e.g. 21 or 15.

Said this on another thread but to me it's pretty simple.

On a defensive foul while in the bonus the offense would have the option to either shoot the free throws or opt for what I'd call an "unopposed inbound" in the backcourt. The offensive team gets the ball in the backcourt, no defensive players can be across the halfcourt line, and the clock starts as soon as the offense crosses halfcourt.

You'd still have some end-game foul strategy, especially for games that are truly close, but it would speed things up quite a bit and the game would still end on the clock and not some indeterminate amount of possessions.

GrayMatter said:

---

Mikeyshooter said:

---

NyAggie said:

---

bobinator said:

---

The only thing I like about this is if both teams start fouling at the end of games maybe we'll get some rules changes to the stupid amount of time ends of games take.

---

Not sure what time changes they could really make?

It's like the fake injuries in football: really hard to implement any rules that wouldn't just be wonky and screw up the way the game is played

---

Agreed. People like to clamor for the Elam Ending but it sucks in reality.

---

The Elam ending sucks in those games that are decided at the free throw line. Very anticlimactic.

Gives way too much power to the zebras.

---

I've seen it in G League and it's fantastic.

bobinator said:

---

Said this on another thread but to me it's pretty simple.

On a defensive foul while in the bonus the offense would have the option to either shoot the free throws or opt for what I'd call an "unopposed inbound" in the backcourt. The offensive team gets the ball in the backcourt, no defensive players can be across the halfcourt line, and the clock starts as soon as the offense crosses halfcourt.

You'd still have some end-game foul strategy, especially for games that are truly close, but it would speed things up quite a bit and the game would still end on the clock and not some indeterminate amount of possessions.

---

This would make the ends of games when a team is up by 4+ very boring in my opinion. Why would the offense ever elect to shoot free throws? Wouldn't they just always select the ball, meaning the team that is down essentially has no chance to get the ball back?

Did not see the game but should an assistant really be making the call to foul if not previously discussed with the HC? Suggests some miscommunication

It would basically be the same as it is now until the game clock is under the shot clock.

But I'd argue that a game where one team is up by 4 or more and the clock is under 30 seconds should be boring. It wouldn't be boring because teams would adjust to the rules and just stop fouling once the game was over and the clock would run and we'd be done with it. The drama would be from about the under 4 media to when the clock hits about 30 seconds.

There's no doubt it would be a huge adjustment, but I think basketball has to clean up the ends of games. It's gotten absolutely ridiculous with all of the timeouts and reviews. It might add to the drama for the sickos, but it's making the game absolutely unwatchable at the end for casual people.

bobinator said:

---

Said this on another thread but to me it's pretty simple.

On a defensive foul while in the bonus the offense would have the option to either shoot the free throws or opt for what I'd call an "unopposed inbound" in the backcourt. The offensive team gets the ball in the backcourt, no defensive players can be across the halfcourt line, and the clock starts as soon as the offense crosses halfcourt.

You'd still have some end-game foul strategy, especially for games that are truly close, but it would speed things up quite a bit and the game would still end on the clock and not some indeterminate amount of possessions.

---

Not a fan because if you are down 3 or less with under 30 seconds to go, you may never get the ball back

In your rule change the inbounds play should absolutely be allowed to be challenged so that the trailing team at least has a chance for a steal or to foul again quickly

That would also make the team getting fouled think twice about passing up the free throws


Even then, I'm not a fan of it

Basketball games have always had a gazillion fouls at the end, so why would we suddenly need to change that now after all these decades of doing it the way it is done now?

Have we REALLY become THAT impatient as a society?

How would it be the same when the game clock is greater than shot clock? If a team is up by 4 with 50 seconds to play and is fouled, they will take the ball every time. They should never select free throws.

I think your way is more fair (I.e, the team that has built the lead will almost always likely win, which is fair). But it would also make the end of games much more boring. So I'd probably be against it.

My big thing is that it's the only scenario in all of sports where a defending team gets to limit, by intentionally violating the rules, how many points the offense can score. They can take away the offense's ability to score three points, which is ridiculous.

The comparison I've made before is that it's like if pass interference in the endzone meant the offense had to try a field goal.

An idea I like less is that non-shooting fouls outside three point line should get three free throws in the closing minutes.

But also yes, we have become that impatient, and when you add in reviews and timeouts the ends of games take absolutely forever. I'd also give each team fewer timeouts.

It they're up by 4 with 50 seconds left them the team wouldn't foul. They play out the shot clock under these rules because the fouling wouldn't help them.

They'd have 30 seconds to get a stop, then their 20 seconds to score, and then they'd get to defend the next inbounds, and possibly try to keep the other team from crossing the timeline before a ten second call.

You have to kind of break free of thinking of the drama only being in the final 30 seconds. With this kind of rule in place, the earlier possessions would hold much more weight than they currently do. There'd be more drama for longer knowing that if you get to the final 30 seconds with a lead and the then you've won the game. Basically how in the NFL once you get under the two minute warning and your opponent is out of timeouts you just need a first down to clinch the game.

To me, the number of fouls aren't the problem at end of games. It's the number of timeouts and reviews that have gotten out of control. Or everyone time someone fouls out we get another timeout.

Mikeyshooter said:

---

To me, the number of fouls aren't the problem at end of games. It's the number of timeouts and reviews that have gotten out of control. Or everyone time someone fouls out we get another timeout.

---

Yeah the replay reviews are terrible in all sports.

I like that they're an option but there's way too many reviews on plays that aren't critical.

bobinator said:

---

My big thing is that it's the only scenario in all of sports where a defending team gets to limit, by intentionally violating the rules, how many points the offense can score. They can take away the offense's ability to score three points, which is ridiculous.

The comparison I've made before is that it's like if pass interference in the endzone meant the offense had to try a field goal.

An idea I like less is that non-shooting fouls outside three point line should get three free throws in the closing minutes.

But also yes, we have become that impatient, and when you add in reviews and timeouts the ends of games take absolutely forever. I'd also give each team fewer timeouts.

---

I hear ya. I was thinking then maybe change the rules to have a third foul tier called triple bonus that after a certain number of fouls a team gets 3 shots, or maybe gets two and if you make both you get a third

When Andy rebounded that second Carter miss with 30 seconds left, we missed out on seeing what would happen in this situation again.

It did look like we were going to foul up 3 if we'd have missed that last free throw. I think I saw one of the coaches ask Buzz.

Bob… i thought the same.. if Coleman misses the second FT, i think an early foul was coming

along those lines.. Carter's two misses were complete bricks

bulverdeaggie93 said:

---

Bob… i thought the same.. if Coleman misses the second FT, i think an early foul was coming

---

100% Buzz said "Foul on a miss"