Sirewolf wrote: I hate the intentional foul while up by three. Too much can go wrong. If you've got Thurl, Tommy, or Cozell on the low block, maybe you feel more comfortable doing it. In no way was it a good decision, given our in-ability to box out when it really counts.

hunwolf wrote:
State had one guy at the top of the key waiting to enter legally.

How the hell was he supposed to help when his man went in 2 seconds early?

I blame Warren....Did he not watch the shot?....How in the heck was that ball going to bounce in the middle of the lane?  It was an obvious miss to the right all the way.  Zo should have been alert though  (I know...why should he worry about a guy who isnt supposed to legally get there.....because this is the ACC and refs dont call a d*** thing at the end of games)

Wood had the box on the shooter...Warren should have been figuring outside...and even if not, he should have seen it!

ADS95 wrote: If there is video of this, I'd love to see it.

Between this, the Howell foul from in front of his defender, the four step non-walk, and the Lewis non-called goaltend...about all I can say is at least we weren't called for many ticky tack fouls.

hunwolf wrote: The stupid in this thread is epic.

glasswolf wrote: wasn't a goaltend. the entire ball must be above the rim level

ADS95 wrote: If there is video of this, I'd love to see it.

Between this, the Howell foul from in front of his defender, the four step non-walk, and the Lewis non-called goaltend...about all I can say is at least we weren't called for many ticky tack fouls.

hunwolf wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- jelly wrote:

Live has nailed it, play defense and blockout.

LiveWolvesinUnitards wrote: Block out as if you used fundamental basketball techniques.

---------------------------------------------

You guys need to go back and try some fundamental counting.

Use your fingers if you have to.

Hint: if one team has a player enter the rebounding area 2 seconds early and the other team does not which team may have more players in the rebounding area.

glasswolf wrote: wasn't a goaltend. the entire ball must be above the rim level

ADS95 wrote: If there is video of this, I'd love to see it.

Between this, the Howell foul from in front of his defender, the four step non-walk, and the Lewis non-called goaltend...about all I can say is at least we weren't called for many ticky tack fouls.

SidsSouljahBoy wrote:

Sirewolf wrote: I hate the intentional foul while up by three. Too much can go wrong. If you've got Thurl, Tommy, or Cozell on the low block, maybe you feel more comfortable doing it. In no way was it a good decision, given our in-ability to box out when it really counts.

I'd want Gott to make that decision 100 times out of 100. Mathematically it is a no brainer. If more coaches applied basic math principles to their decision making they'd be better off. This goes for all sports.

TexasWolfpack wrote:

SidsSouljahBoy wrote:

Sirewolf wrote: I hate the intentional foul while up by three. Too much can go wrong. If you've got Thurl, Tommy, or Cozell on the low block, maybe you feel more comfortable doing it. In no way was it a good decision, given our in-ability to box out when it really counts.

I'd want Gott to make that decision 100 times out of 100. Mathematically it is a no brainer. If more coaches applied basic math principles to their decision making they'd be better off. This goes for all sports.

Agree on the intentional - I'd be shocked if the stats didn't back this up as the more successful way to preserve the win.  VT needed an awful lot to go right in this instance - guy has to make first free throw, intentionally miss and still hit iron, get the offensive rebound, and make the stick back. 

They happen to execute it perfectly and even in this situation, had to make an illegal move and hope the ref doesn't call it.  I haven't seen a whole lot of examples where this worked versus games where guys just drilled 3s to send games into OT.  I've more often seen soft defense since they are so afraid of committing the foul on the 3pt attempt that the offensive team gets a pretty good look.

Plus we were likely to foul the 3 point shooter - resulting in a 4 point play and LOSS - at least we were able to get to OT (at home - big advantage) and win.

GO PACK!!! BEAT FSU!!! Time for Wood to get a blizzard of 3's!

ADS95 wrote: If there is video of this, I'd love to see it.

Between this, the Howell foul from in front of his defender, the four step non-walk, and the Lewis non-called goaltend...about all I can say is at least we weren't called for many ticky tack fouls.

Sec17WufPacker wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- glasswolf wrote:

wasn't a goaltend. the entire ball must be above the rim level

ADS95 wrote: If there is video of this, I'd love to see it.

Between this, the Howell foul from in front of his defender, the four step non-walk, and the Lewis non-called goaltend...about all I can say is at least we weren't called for many ticky tack fouls.

---------------------------------------------

Incorrect
If the ball comes off the backboard and is on the way up, it is a goal tend. That is exactly what happened.

EuroWolf wrote:

Sec17WufPacker wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- glasswolf wrote:

wasn't a goaltend. the entire ball must be above the rim level

ADS95 wrote: If there is video of this, I'd love to see it.

Between this, the Howell foul from in front of his defender, the four step non-walk, and the Lewis non-called goaltend...about all I can say is at least we weren't called for many ticky tack fouls.

---------------------------------------------

Incorrect
If the ball comes off the backboard and is on the way up, it is a goal tend. That is exactly what happened.

Wrong.  Entire ball must be above rim level in order to be a goaltend.  This is the appropriate excerpt from the 2012-2013 NCAA rule book, which is easily obtainable from their website (rule 4-34.3).

Art. 3. When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight.  In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player.

W0lfm4n wrote: #1 Foul them up three under 10 seconds
#2 Huddle the team at the top of the key to block the other team from getting to the foul line and break their concentration (I wonder where I learned this one)
#3 Commit a lane violation resulting in an automatic point and NCSU ball inbounds

Am I missing something here?

EuroWolf wrote:

Sec17WufPacker wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- glasswolf wrote:

wasn't a goaltend. the entire ball must be above the rim level

ADS95 wrote: If there is video of this, I'd love to see it.

Between this, the Howell foul from in front of his defender, the four step non-walk, and the Lewis non-called goaltend...about all I can say is at least we weren't called for many ticky tack fouls.

---------------------------------------------

Incorrect
If the ball comes off the backboard and is on the way up, it is a goal tend. That is exactly what happened.

Wrong.  Entire ball must be above rim level in order to be a goaltend.  This is the appropriate excerpt from the 2012-2013 NCAA rule book, which is easily obtainable from their website (rule 4-34.3).

Art. 3. When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight.  In such a case, it is goaltending when the ball is touched by a player.

TruthBKnownReturns wrote: So you commit a lane violation.  They get ANOTHER free throw.  But who cares, because they're trying to miss it anyway, so it doesn't matter.  I think this could actually work -- come running in, goaltend the free throw while committing a lane violation.  They would have to count the point, would they not?

And now YOU get to inbound the ball.

This could actually be a stroke of genius, but it would probably only work for a season.  I suspect there would be a rule change during the offseason to account for goaltending an intentional miss.  Or maybe not... ?

CardiacPackAttack wrote: I think it was C.C. Harrison in a game vs. Clemson at Littlejohn (1998?) with the game on the line, threw the ball on the backboard, caught it and put it back for the win. Illegal, but it won the game.

SidsSouljahBoy wrote:

Sirewolf wrote: I hate the intentional foul while up by three. Too much can go wrong. If you've got Thurl, Tommy, or Cozell on the low block, maybe you feel more comfortable doing it. In no way was it a good decision, given our in-ability to box out when it really counts.

I'd want Gott to make that decision 100 times out of 100. Mathematically it is a no brainer. If more coaches applied basic math principles to their decision making they'd be better off. This goes for all sports.

CardiacPackAttack wrote: I think it was C.C. Harrison in a game vs. Clemson at Littlejohn (1998?) with the game on the line, threw the ball on the backboard, caught it and put it back for the win. Illegal, but it won the game.

EuroWolf wrote:

W0lfm4n wrote: #1 Foul them up three under 10 seconds
#2 Huddle the team at the top of the key to block the other team from getting to the foul line and break their concentration (I wonder where I learned this one)
#3 Commit a lane violation resulting in an automatic point and NCSU ball inbounds

Am I missing something here?

Lane violation doesn't give them the point, just another attempt if the previous one was missed.

CardiacPackAttack wrote: I think it was C.C. Harrison in a game vs. Clemson at Littlejohn (1998?) with the game on the line, threw the ball on the backboard, caught it and put it back for the win. Illegal, but it won the game.

FreshEye wrote: There is no coaching to counteract refs who don't know the rules.

Gopack80 wrote: Tougher to defend when offensive player is allowed to enter the lane illegally.

hunwolf wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Pappawuf wrote:

CardiacPackAttack wrote: I think it was C.C. Harrison in a game vs. Clemson at Littlejohn (1998?) with the game on the line, threw the ball on the backboard, caught it and put it back for the win. Illegal, but it won the game.

no it was not illegal the ball clipped the rim please dont try to rewrite history

---------------------------------------------

The shooter can't move across the line until the ball hits the rim.

CC was halfway down the lane by that time.

What part of that is not clear?

Pappawuf wrote:

EuroWolf wrote:

W0lfm4n wrote: #1 Foul them up three under 10 seconds
#2 Huddle the team at the top of the key to block the other team from getting to the foul line and break their concentration (I wonder where I learned this one)
#3 Commit a lane violation resulting in an automatic point and NCSU ball inbounds

Am I missing something here?

Lane violation doesn't give them the point, just another attempt if the previous one was missed.

wow, guys please learn the rules if you are going to post about them....

a lane violation by the shooting team in the second of a two shot attmept is a turnover and the opposing team gets the ball out of bounds

wufpack7 wrote:

hunwolf wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- Pappawuf wrote:

CardiacPackAttack wrote: I think it was C.C. Harrison in a game vs. Clemson at Littlejohn (1998?) with the game on the line, threw the ball on the backboard, caught it and put it back for the win. Illegal, but it won the game.

no it was not illegal the ball clipped the rim please dont try to rewrite history

---------------------------------------------

The shooter can't move across the line until the ball hits the rim.

CC was halfway down the lane by that time.

What part of that is not clear?

I don't think CC did anything illegal.  He missed it perfectly so that it came off hard and fast.  If he left early, it was by a millisecond.  The illegal part of that play was that our guys on the lane essentially tackled all of the Clemson players so that they couldn't get the rebound.  That's why the lane was so open.  I couldn't believe the refs made no call on that one.

Sirewolf wrote: Richard was too far under hoop. What's so hard to understand?