Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2015 12:35:51 GMT -8
This happened at UNLV on Wednesday and the commentators finally mentioned what has bugged me for years. UNLV fouled both Winston Shepard and Aqeel Quinn before we had a chance to inbound the ball. It put them on the free throw line without a second being left off the clock. Lappas was saying he feels it should be an intentional foul and we should get two free throws and the ball. I'm not sure I would go that far, but I would like the NCAA to get creative somehow, maybe award the foul and have the team inbound it again, maybe give the opposing team 1 technical free throw and then inbound the ball again. Something should be done to prevent teams from targeting the opposing teams worst free throw shooter and having them shoot free throws. This brings me to "The game that never happened". The comeback UNLV had on us on February 25th, 2005. www.youtube.com/watch?v=i03Drg7fOokUNLV did this to Trimaine Davis TWICE and that (along with horrible awful defense on our part including Marcus Slaughter fouling them on a 3 point attempt) allowed them to force the game into overtime. And it has ALWAYS bugged me when I think about that game. I mean for starters, Trimaine Davis was an awful free throw shooter (the Laramie game in 2006 aside), so he never should have been on the court, but UNLV taking advantage of this non-rule basically won them the game. |
|
|
|
Post by mySTRAS on Mar 6, 2015 12:48:27 GMT -8
Lappas was going crazy about it being a 'flagrant' foul... which I don't agree with.
There are rules for flagrant fouls... are there rules for intentional fouls? If not, there probably should be, maybe 2 shots if the team isn't already in the double bonus?
|
|
|
|
Post by ignoranus on Mar 6, 2015 12:49:43 GMT -8
I was there that awful night. Probably the worst meltdown I've ever personally seen at a sports event.
NO WAY I can watch it again!
|
|
|
|
Post by longtimebooster on Mar 6, 2015 12:50:14 GMT -8
I don't understand. What game? Against whom? When? I clicked on the Youtube link and nothing played. Must have something to do with a filter on my computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by missiontrails on Mar 6, 2015 12:54:50 GMT -8
Lappas was going crazy about it being a 'flagrant' foul... which I don't agree with. There are rules for flagrant fouls... are there rules for intentional fouls? If not, there probably should be, maybe 2 shots if the team isn't already in the double bonus? Yes, there is a rule against "intentional fouls" - it is called "Flagrant 1", which is what Lappas was calling for. "Flagrant 2" is for a "flagrant" foul. I agree it should not be allowed prior to the inbound play for the very reason of targeting the worst shooter. They shouldn't be able to foul them that easily. Perhaps the rule can be if the foul is before the ball is in play, the coach should be allowed to choose who on the court shoots the free throws. |
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Mar 6, 2015 12:58:47 GMT -8
Lappas was going crazy about it being a 'flagrant' foul... which I don't agree with. There are rules for flagrant fouls... are there rules for intentional fouls? If not, there probably should be, maybe 2 shots if the team isn't already in the double bonus? So if they foul intentionally in the back court why not award 2 free throws with a few second runoff for fouling? |
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 13:03:07 GMT -8
Lappas was going crazy about it being a 'flagrant' foul... which I don't agree with. There are rules for flagrant fouls... are there rules for intentional fouls? If not, there probably should be, maybe 2 shots if the team isn't already in the double bonus? So if they foul intentionally in the back court why not award 2 free throws with a few second runoff for fouling? If a foul is intentionally committed when the clock is off, I think it should be a minimum Technical Foul (if its not a flagrant foul) with an award of a single free throw and possession ... at least in the final 2 min. |
|
|
|
Post by vision on Mar 6, 2015 13:08:39 GMT -8
regardless of if it is a Flagrant or not ...being able to foul with ZERO time coming off the clock is VERY bad for the Aztecs (since they are a bad free-throw shooting team). I hope it is addressed by coaches prior to all games moving forward this year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Mar 6, 2015 13:09:36 GMT -8
Let's e-mail Lappas & see what he recommends!  |
|
|
|
Post by fisherville on Mar 6, 2015 13:25:21 GMT -8
NBA does it perfectly well
|
|
|
|
Post by HighNTight on Mar 6, 2015 13:30:20 GMT -8
NBA does it perfectly well haha, that's what I said ... I just failed to attribute the idea to the NBA |
|
|
|
Post by standiego on Mar 6, 2015 14:23:09 GMT -8
Bottom line there should be discussion about it with the rules group . At least 2 FT's with less then a minute in the game , maybe take X amount of seconds off the clock , definitely puts premium on guys making FT's .
|
|
|
|
Post by zollner on Mar 6, 2015 14:28:35 GMT -8
The other rule that needs to be addressed is some type of rule that the NBA adopted when a player has a break away to the basket and is fouled at half court, for example. The NBA calls it a clear path foul, two foul shots and the ball. In college it is just a common foul, if your team is not in the bonus you just get the ball out of bounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fishn'Aztec on Mar 6, 2015 14:31:39 GMT -8
The other rule that needs to be addressed is some type of rule that the NBA adopted when a player has a break away to the basket and is fouled at half court, for example. The NBA calls it a clear path foul, two foul shots and the ball. In college it is just a common foul, if your team is not in the bonus you just get the ball out of bounds. The NBA has the right idea, you would assume a basket made on a clear path and the out of bounds play is just jeopardy! |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Mar 6, 2015 14:40:01 GMT -8
"T" 'em up, I say.
Change those rules to take time off the clock AND give shots to the team that was fouled (and the keep possession after the FTs).
Gotta "disincentivize" that strategy …
|
|
|
|
Post by northcountymike on Mar 6, 2015 15:06:46 GMT -8
The other rule that needs to be addressed is some type of rule that the NBA adopted when a player has a break away to the basket and is fouled at half court, for example. The NBA calls it a clear path foul, two foul shots and the ball. In college it is just a common foul, if your team is not in the bonus you just get the ball out of bounds. That and perhaps the "call a timeout and get the ball at half court" idea... |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Mar 6, 2015 18:08:37 GMT -8
didn't KL have an intentional called in the Conn game that gave them shots and the ball during a time out. don't quite remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Mar 6, 2015 18:09:25 GMT -8
rice used the rules in his advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Mar 6, 2015 18:15:04 GMT -8
Free throw(s) and keep possession. That would stop this nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcljorgenson on Mar 6, 2015 18:29:55 GMT -8
To clarify, Lappas knows that it is not a flagrant foul but thinks there should be a rule change that makes it a flagrant foul. I kind of agree because the offense should at least have the ability to try and keep the ball out of a poor free throw shooter's hands so that the other team cannot just pick who they want to foul each time.
The current definition of a flagrant 1 requires it to be a foul that is "preventing a score," such as with a breakaway layup/dunk.
|
|
