roanoke wrote: I do not disagree with you on the fact we could have used the t.o.- in fact, I say, I wish we had called the time-out.

I do think it is very important you know you have a time-out.

I will say CKS called more "flow" or momentum time outs than normal last night.

Truly, with three seconds left, many think it is a draw as to who benefits - a good offense knows the play it is going to run and the d does not.  So if the d just clogs up the inbound and sticks to the guy who wants the ball, they are usually ok over three seconds. So I do not mind the lack of the time-out by the d - except that we apparently needed and wanted it and didn't call it.  (or the ref did not recognize it) Still, players on the court should know not to give them a free roll the ball up the court - and somebody has to stick to henderson like glue.  Again, it is a young team.  I do not mind the lack of a time out if we execute the basics.  It is never good not to know how many time-outs you have left.... if that is what happened.

And fouling with one second is great if you pull it off just right - but a tip-in is good up to .2 I believe - and given the rebounding on foul shots in that game - there is no way i would have called for a foul there... especially not on Henderson who probably practices perfect misses. If we intentionally foul as henderson releases at one second - we lose that game in regulation.  Period.

The foul decision really should come down to mathematical probabilities combined with an analysis of the talent on the floor.  The only analysis I have seen was in a SI article from a few years ago.  According to that article, up three with under seven seconds the odds are as follows: 

and i am not disagreeing with you in concept, either.

My point is not that it is stupid to foul up three - because it is generally smart.

My point is that given the way that game went - I would not be inclined to do it...

and given that henderson did hit his shot - if we had intentionally fouled someone else at the one second mark as was suggested (not by you) - the other guy would have had two shots to win the game as it turned out because henderson's three went down.

I do think we can all agree the last three seconds were kind of screwed up.  That is not an indictment of the coach or the players - but it was not good.

roanoke wrote: and i am not disagreeing with you in concept, either.

My point is not that it is stupid to foul up three - because it is generally smart.

My point is that given the way that game went - I would not be inclined to do it...

and given that henderson did hit his shot - if we had intentionally fouled someone else at the one second mark as was suggested (not by you) - the other guy would have had two shots to win the game as it turned out because henderson's three went down.

I do think we can all agree the last three seconds were kind of screwed up.  That is not an indictment of the coach or the players - but it was not good.

I would have fouled on the ball around half court.  After that, the threat of fouling in the act of shooting becomes too great.  I agree that any suggestion of fouling away from the ball is foolish - it also risks the threat of an intentional foul call awarding shots plus the ball.

Mark Few agrees with you, so you've got good company.  

I actually think it's fine to indict our coach and players to a point, just not to the point it gets done on this board.  Many think that Stallings should have called a timeout (in my opinion, a bigger indictment of his assistants than of him, given that he tried to get the timeout as soon as he learned we had one left).  I think we should have fouled.  Many agree that Parker needed to stay on Henderson like glue.  Everyone agrees that the players need to realize that the free throw line is the same distance from the basket in games as in practice.  Next time, I hope things go differently.  More importantly, I hope they go differently next season, when I expect this team to be playing more meaningful games and fighting for a NCAA Tournament spot.