Intentional foul in the bonus when opponent is down 3... is it unfair?

[oarabbus]

When a team gets in the bonus, it's supposed to penalize the opponent...not benefit them.

If a team is down by 3 points and in the bonus, at an end-of-game situation, the other team can just foul immediately upon the inbounds, let them hit two FT (now they are down by 1) and then get position and hold the ball for the W.

Anyone else think it's kind of a cheap tactic or nah?

[J Shuttlesworth]

You could make the same argument about Hack-a-______

The spurs, for example, were in the penalty, which worked in their favor so they could force Deandre to shoot free throws

[oarabbus]

You could make the same argument about Hack-a-______

The spurs, for example, were in the penalty, which worked in their favor so they could force Deandre to shoot free throws


I feel you on that but they specifically made rules to eliminate hacking in the last 2 mins. It's one thing to lose a lead while enduring a bullshit annoying strategy... it's another to actually have the outcome of the game decided by the bullshit.

Basically what I mean is, hypothetically let's say a team is up 3 points, fouls the other team in the bonus. Other team hits 2 fts, is down 1, the fouling team holds the ball and wins. But if the trailing team was NOT in the bonus, then they would have another chance at taking the 3... doesn't seem right to me. Being in the bonus actually hurt them.

[hahaitme]

Basketball is not really a fair sport though.

In tennis for example you will sometimes see players admitting the ball touched the line or was in or whatever, when the umpire/linesmen call it incorrectly. Or avoid hitting players while they are up close at the net even though it would be an easy point.

In soccer, though there is huge flopping, generally when someone gets injured or takes a hard fall play might not stop so the players will either hold the ball or just kick it out of bounds.

You will never, ever see someone admit that a ball was out off you in the NBA though, or admit that you didn't actually get fouled on that drive. Not that I'm holding that against NBA players - Pretty much everyone including myself does this even at rec. level
Ball players will take what they can get, and intentional fouling is legal in the NBA so, it goes.

Just a note on this in regards to rec. level play though, just a few days ago I held someone on a fast break and the ref gave me a tech, they got to shoot 2 FT's and keep possession. :roll:

Oh and there's always this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohHoK4-LeuY

[Xsatyr]

Rockets commentators say the stats show that your chances of winning are about the same whether you foul or not. I think it's around 90 percent for both when you're up three.

[ILLsmak]

Rockets commentators say the stats show that your chances of winning are about the same whether you foul or not. I think it's around 90 percent for both when you're up three.

As I said in another thread it's just for advertising sake. Now, in college people miss clutch FTs all the damn time, esp when it's 1 and 1.

I still don't like it. I think it was effectively accepted as a strategy they couldn't prevent and they maximized it with TV ads. Cuz I mean you can intentionally foul someone without looking like it's intentional. You can't just say no fouls at the end of the game, unfort.

It's like a different part of basketball, tho. We all accept it as a part because it happens all of the damn time even when a team has no chance. Just the "chance" in their mind is enough.

I wonder if a coach would get fired for not intentionally fouling at the end of games.

Edit: @ Yao FT. lol it takes more skill to do that than make it tho.

-Smak

[iamgine]

When a team gets in the bonus, it's supposed to penalize the opponent...not benefit them.

If a team is down by 3 points and in the bonus, at an end-of-game situation, the other team can just foul immediately upon the inbounds, let them hit two FT (now they are down by 1) and then get position and hold the ball for the W.

Anyone else think it's kind of a cheap tactic or nah?
Umm, the trailing team can also foul their opponent. Why would they let their opponent hold the ball for the W? Or they can also try missing 1 FT intentionally and get the rebound.

[JonatanRey]

This is more common in Europe. Remember when Pop didn't do it in the Finals when Ray Allen knocked down that 3 pointer. Many people criticised that.

I think it's fair to do it. You also take the risk of an intentional miss in the second free throw and miss the rebound. That happens. Or the risk of stopping the clock and missing your free throws when you have the ball next.

It's a strategy. I don't think it's unfair.

[Akhenaten]

Rockets commentators say the stats show that your chances of winning are about the same whether you foul or not. I think it's around 90 percent for both when you're up three.

Yeah, but how big is the sample size though? I imagine that there isnt a great deal of instances where a team up 3 in that situation intentionally fouled. It's a rather new strategy, the old school coaches kind of frown on it.

The werent employing that strategy in the 60's-early 00's, and if they were I imagine it was miniscule compared to the amount of times coaches/teams just chose to "play it out".

[qrich]

No, it's strategy

[ImKobe]

I don't know if it's unfair but it ruins the game for me as a fan of basketball, I always love to see the other team at least have a chance to shoot for the tie down 3...

[oarabbus]

I don't know if it's unfair but it ruins the game for me as a fan of basketball, I always love to see the other team at least have a chance to shoot for the tie down 3...


This. It's great to see the other team attempt the 3

[Crown&Coke]

Fair is a relative term in pro sports

Coaches are the ones making the determination whether to foul or not. The coaches main objective is to win, not to keep the fans entertained.

The best way to undermine this strategy is to get a hold of your favorite player, and tell him to bust a 3 while getting fouled in this situation. I guarantee coaches will change their end of game strategy after they get burned for a game winner in that fashion.

[MP.Trey]

It's not unfair, but it's certainly not fun to watch.

[CP343]

Fair to me.

[buddha]

it would be fair if they gave the team continuation and let it be a shooting foul like it should half the time. I have no idea why most of them aren't shooting fouls.

[Bernkastel]

You play to win the game.

[Euroleague]

When a team gets in the bonus, it's supposed to penalize the opponent...not benefit them.

If a team is down by 3 points and in the bonus, at an end-of-game situation, the other team can just foul immediately upon the inbounds, let them hit two FT (now they are down by 1) and then get position and hold the ball for the W.

Anyone else think it's kind of a cheap tactic or nah?

PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE

[Euroleague]

Rockets commentators say the stats show that your chances of winning are about the same whether you foul or not. I think it's around 90 percent for both when you're up three.

That's because NBA coaches are stupid and only wait until the last possible time to foul. If you foul immediately, and not even on the last possession, but as soon as you get the lead towards the end of the game, then of course you will automatically win.

But NBA coaches are too stupid to grasp such a simple math problem as that.

[Euroleague]

This is more common in Europe. Remember when Pop didn't do it in the Finals when Ray Allen knocked down that 3 pointer. Many people criticised that.

I think it's fair to do it. You also take the risk of an intentional miss in the second free throw and miss the rebound. That happens. Or the risk of stopping the clock and missing your free throws when you have the ball next.

It's a strategy. I don't think it's unfair.

And if Popovich would have not been such a dumb ass and had the team foul, the Spurs would have won the championship.

The stats about it being the same either way are nonsense.

It's because NBA coaches are idiots.

You have to foul immediately as soon as you get the lead once you get to the end of the game, and if necessary, keep on fouling.

Then you put your best free throw shooters and ball handlers on the floor.

Even if some miracle play like Allen's 3 happens........you would still get multiple possessions back.

Evidently, that's something well beyond the grasp of moron NBA coaches though.

[Xsatyr]

That's because NBA coaches are stupid and only wait until the last possible time to foul. If you foul immediately, and not even on the last possession, but as soon as you get the lead towards the end of the game, then of course you will automatically win.

But NBA coaches are too stupid to grasp such a simple math problem as that.

If you foul early and they make both free throws then they'll send you to the line. If you miss a shot then they can win when before they could only tie. That's why you wait so you can have the last possession in that situation. You don't foul if you're up three unless there are only seconds remaining.

[qrich]

If you foul early and they make both free throws then they'll send you to the line. If you miss a shot then they can win when before they could only tie. That's why you wait so you can have the last possession in that situation. You don't foul if you're up three unless there are only seconds remaining.

NBA Coaches were also too stupid to see how great Shitoklis Shitnashitsis and Vashitnilis Shitnoulis where.

Afterall, Big Shitko was 10 times the player that Marcus Camby could ever dream of being.

[GOBB]

It's a fair tactic. I really don't see the problem.

[T_L_P]

No problem with it.

The idea of a last moment play is to get someone an open shot...if your screens don't work and the defender is close enough to foul the ball-handler...why shouldn't he?