WhiteShepherdWolf wrote:

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

They are talking about lane violations by the defending team, not the shooting team.  No need to get snippy, especially if you aren't going to take the time to read the posts well.

dbo2874 wrote: Goaltend the FT, which would have given VT the point and State the ball up 1.

I guess would be hard to do it without a lane violation but hell just sent CJ up there to grab the rim when they shoot it and hang on the rim and swat the ball away.

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.

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.

9mariowilliams90 wrote:

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.

The rules were changed in the last 10 years or so.

Remember, MJ taking off from beyond the 3 point line and dunking a missed FT?  Those were legal at the time but were quickly adjusted for in the rules (both college and pro).  I believe the shooter and guys behind the 3 point line were then restricted from moving until after the ball hits the rim. 
It's quite frustrating that the ref's missed it.  Espically since there was nothing else going on for them to be watching.

SeaBarrister 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.

was above the rim.. just watched both camera angles from the TiVO'd broadcast.   When you frame-by-frame it, it's not even really that close.

SeaBarrister wrote:

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.

KenPom has run the numbers from actual games and found the difference to be negligible (I was shocked, as previously I agreed with your take).  The team up by 3 wins 94.xxxx% of the games either way.

jrmac67 wrote: The ball was not completely above the rim on the goaltend....i just went back and watched it, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Good coaching to foul up 3 when under 10 seconds. The intentional miss was perfectly executed, that never happens.....nevermind the violation on them crossing the 3 pt arc too soon, that's just bs that happens in end-game situations. Serious kudos to the team for continuing to BATTLE and come away with the win.

How to defend against the intentional miss.........LOL. you guys are seriously comical sometimes.

jrmac67 wrote: The ball was not completely above the rim on the goaltend....i just went back and watched it, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Good coaching to foul up 3 when under 10 seconds. The intentional miss was perfectly executed, that never happens.....nevermind the violation on them crossing the 3 pt arc too soon, that's just bs that happens in end-game situations. Serious kudos to the team for continuing to BATTLE and come away with the win.

How to defend against the intentional miss.........LOL. you guys are seriously comical sometimes.

TexasWolfpack wrote:

SeaBarrister wrote:

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.

KenPom has run the numbers from actual games and found the difference to be negligible (I was shocked, as previously I agreed with your take).  The team up by 3 wins 94.xxxx% of the games either way.

I'm surprised as well - guessing that maybe most coaches don't file so it seems like letting them shoot the 3 has a higher failure rate.  Do you have the link?  I'd be interested to see how detailed they break it down (like by the second). 

The 94% success sounds incredible when most guys taking the shot probably shoot about 40% from 3, factor in a huge drop in the situation to 15% shooting, and split OT games 50/50 - seems like you'd get a success rate of 92.50% letting them shoot.  I'm leaving out some other things -fouling the shooter for a 4pt play, maybe a second left for a half court fling that goes in.

After cleaning up those cases, this is what the output looks like…

         W    L   OT   Win%   Cases 
Foul    122   5   10   92.7    137 
Defend  598   2   77   94.0    677

====

Another reason the fouling strategy isn’t as useful as one would think is that teams really stink at three-pointers when the defense knows they need one and there is a significant time constraint. In the 814 cases studied, teams made 98 out of 608 three-point shots (16.1%) during the possession in question. Basically, assume a player is about half as effective as normal in hitting threes when his team is down three facing a limited clock. He might even be worse since it’s possible these shots were skewed towards more effective shooters.

Here's the takeaway from the story he linked, as well:

Of the 52 teams that committed a foul, six lost the game for a winning percentage of 88.46%. Of the 391 teams that did not foul, 33 lost the game for a winning percentage of 91.56%. Both a two sample t-test of proportion and a Chi-squared test fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is a difference in winning percentage between the two strategies. In this sample, teams that did not foul won slightly more often. For the less statistically inclined, this means that there is no significant difference between the two strategies.

WhiteShepherdWolf wrote:

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... ?

Could doing that risk getting a technical?

SeaBarrister wrote:

jrmac67 wrote: The ball was not completely above the rim on the goaltend....i just went back and watched it, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Good coaching to foul up 3 when under 10 seconds. The intentional miss was perfectly executed, that never happens.....nevermind the violation on them crossing the 3 pt arc too soon, that's just bs that happens in end-game situations. Serious kudos to the team for continuing to BATTLE and come away with the win.

How to defend against the intentional miss.........LOL. you guys are seriously comical sometimes.

Then you didn't watch it frame-by-frame... go watch again.. it was clearly above the rim.

Helps if you do the same from the side view first.. and then the view from behind.

Loucouldcoach wrote:

SeaBarrister wrote:

jrmac67 wrote: The ball was not completely above the rim on the goaltend....i just went back and watched it, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Good coaching to foul up 3 when under 10 seconds. The intentional miss was perfectly executed, that never happens.....nevermind the violation on them crossing the 3 pt arc too soon, that's just bs that happens in end-game situations. Serious kudos to the team for continuing to BATTLE and come away with the win.

How to defend against the intentional miss.........LOL. you guys are seriously comical sometimes.

Then you didn't watch it frame-by-frame... go watch again.. it was clearly above the rim.

Helps if you do the same from the side view first.. and then the view from behind.

Hard to find fault on a refs call if it takes a frame by frame viewing to see something. Watching it live at PNC and watching again on dvr i thought it was a good block with a lot of the ball below the rim

dbo2874 wrote: could still happenm with a box out, no?

Loucouldcoach 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.

That's how I understood the rule also. You can still block a shot after it hits the backboard if the ball is below the rim.  Midget Rule we always called it


Also   IIRC   goaltending a free throw is 1 point plus a technical foul

HywayWolf wrote:

Loucouldcoach wrote:

SeaBarrister wrote:

jrmac67 wrote: The ball was not completely above the rim on the goaltend....i just went back and watched it, and I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.

Good coaching to foul up 3 when under 10 seconds. The intentional miss was perfectly executed, that never happens.....nevermind the violation on them crossing the 3 pt arc too soon, that's just bs that happens in end-game situations. Serious kudos to the team for continuing to BATTLE and come away with the win.

How to defend against the intentional miss.........LOL. you guys are seriously comical sometimes.

Then you didn't watch it frame-by-frame... go watch again.. it was clearly above the rim.

Helps if you do the same from the side view first.. and then the view from behind.

Hard to find fault on a refs call if it takes a frame by frame viewing to see something. Watching it live at PNC and watching again on dvr i thought it was a good block with a lot of the ball below the rim

They took time to go frame by frame to change a 3 point shot to a 2.

rswilli2 wrote: It was a brilliantly designed play. Illegal, but beautiful.

grantwolf wrote:

rswilli2 wrote: It was a brilliantly designed play. Illegal, but beautiful.

Yeah, announcers kept saying this...of course, if the ref makes the pretty easy call, it's "missed basket" and NC State is inbounding the ball with a 2-point lead....so horribly executed play.

TruthBKnownReturns wrote:

grantwolf wrote:

rswilli2 wrote: It was a brilliantly designed play. Illegal, but beautiful.

Yeah, announcers kept saying this...of course, if the ref makes the pretty easy call, it's "missed basket" and NC State is inbounding the ball with a 2-point lead....so horribly executed play.

It would not have been so beautiful if he had stayed behind the free throw line until the ball hit the rim.  The ball would have been in the unyielding clutches of Sir Richard the Howell.  And no one would be saying how beautiful the play was.

Wufpk1 wrote: Head on over to the ACC network.  They have the tip-in as a "must see" moment.  lol.  It is one thing to miss the call - but then the conference shows it off?  I would think the proper response would be to pretend it didn't happen - kinda like UNC-CHeats' rampant cheating.

reciprocity wrote: Below are both of the lane violations that occurred on the play.

No player shall enter or leave a marked lane space or contact any part of the court outside the marked lane space until the free-thrower has released the ball.  Marshall Wood is already spinning on CJ before Green shoots the ball.




Players not in a legal marked lane space shall remain behind the free-throw line extended and behind the three-point field-goal line until the ball strikes the ring, flange or backboard, or until the free throw ends.  The ball is about to hit the rim and Jarrell Eddie is well in front of the free-throw line extended and three-point line.