Comments on: Foul!

By: andrej 1500

andrej 1500 — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:37:28 +0000

I think a player who commits enough fouls to be in foul trouble is a player who is probably tired (not playing defense with the feet, lack of concentration,etc). So, the fouls are the symptoms of a player that needs rest (rather than the reason he/she is rested).

By: zaoem

zaoem — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:26:53 +0000

I think you are right that coaches resort to this strategy too easily but there are some good reasons in some cases. One that is not mentioned is that especially post players in early foul trouble become vulnerable defensively. Teams will go at them thus forcing the player to risk further foul trouble or giving up easy lay-ups. In addition, a player who is told to be careful may not be as effective, thus making the substitute relatively more attractive.

By: Jeffrey Kramer

Jeffrey Kramer — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:59:10 +0000

Even if—logically speaking—the shot you make or miss when trailing 12-11 in the first quarter counts just as much as the shot you make or miss when trailing 100-99 with two seconds left, there is far more pressure on the latter shot because of the extra attention it gets. The assumption is that substitute players will be more likely to fold under that pressure, but will be capable of playing to their potential in the second and third quarter while the star player is benched with foul trouble. Under those assumptions, it’s rational to keep the star players eligible to take the fourth quarter shots.

By: dog1

dog1 — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 23:42:53 +0000

I think you are being neglectful of the power of conventional wisdom. If it is universally believed, as I think it is, that you must save an important player for the end of the game, then a coach might appear negligent if he did not do just that. And he would not only appear negligent to his bosses (not directly relevant to the outcome of the game in question), but to the other players he is coaching (potentially very relevant to the game in question).

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 20:29:16 +0000

Why not just because when people get frustrated, they make bad decisions and play badly (I know I do)? If a person has just committed a couple of fouls, it’s a good sign of frustration, so sit them, and let them refocus/rest. I also hate the ambiguity of the foul calls, particularly that charges aren’t called anywhere near as much as I would like (and I’m a guard).

By: Carleton Wu

Carleton Wu — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:51:55 +0000

Someone mentioned that pulling a player allows him to rest and have the (possibly reduced) minutes he’ll play be the best he can give. Given the limitations of the bench players, it’s also critical that those minutes be available to spell the other players at that position. If I have a good starting PF and C, and a decent player who can back both of them up (and the rest of my bench is scrubs)- if the PF gets in foul trouble, I need to be able to use his minutes to rest my other big men. Otherwise, when they get tired, I’ll be forced to put scrubs on the floor or play my guys regardless of fatuige. Wu

By: Skip Perry

Skip Perry — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:27:12 +0000

I’ve always liked the term “flagrant foul” much more than intentional foul. Like you say, you get the technical not for the intention—all fouls at the end of the game by a losing team are clearly intentional—but for the flagrancy or extreme nature of the foul itself.

By: Ben Keen

Ben Keen — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:30:20 +0000

Opposing players can ‘draw fouls’, too. Especially in the NBA, where a lot of offensive fouls (like charging) are very rarely called. Well, along with carrying the ball, double dribbling, and travelling, but that’s another story. Of course, I have a personally biased view on this – I’m quite tall, and played center in church league in elementary school; at least half my fouls were charges that were called as fouls on me.

By: Ikram

Ikram — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:51:02 +0000

Despite having lived my entire life in two of the leading basketball countries of the world You’ve lived your entire life in the US and Lithuania? The US and the Serbia?

By: Perry

Perry — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:35:35 +0000

Let’s not discount the subjectivity of the refs. I would love to see some actual data on this, but I suspect there is significant bias with regard to refs blowing the whistle against star players near the end of a game (particularly a close game). Same goes with traveling and out of bounds calls – they become rarer at the end of the game (unless you are Chris Webber). Coaches know this so they play the odds and pull the player in foul trouble early. There is similar subjectivity in soccer refereeing; whether a red or yellow card is pulled often influenced by a) the star power of the player in question, b) the relative “roughness” of the match to that point, c) the number of cards already pulled, d) a closely preceding foul, e) even the “reputation” of the player/team, etc. go Jaspers!

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:45:47 +0000

This is a rehash of nels’ (b) I think, but is it possible that players in foul trouble will play worse for fear of picking up the last foul, until the last minutes? This might not be rational but might nevertheless make it rational to bench them.

By: nick

nick — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 14:01:54 +0000

The problem is that there’s little evidence I can see that that claim is true. Buckets don’t count more at the end of the game, for instance. Oh, but they do. My limited appreciation of basketball extends to the fact that the game doesn’t really start until the last five minutes, and those last five minutes are stretched out to about an hour, with timeouts etc, and as others have said, as time ticks down, the plays and outcomes and situations become much more atomic and designed around specific players and combinations of players. Losing an 85% free-throw shooter to foul trouble, for instance, makes it more difficult to win a game in which the opposition uses quick fouls and trips to the charity stripe to regain possession and claw back a deficit. That’s one reason why I don’t quite understand the TV allure of b-ball: while it has lots of points and nice breaks for ads, it’s basically a yawn until the very end. And that’s only if it’s a close game.

By: Matt Evans

Matt Evans — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:55:15 +0000

There have been plenty of good comments on the foul trouble scenario, but I think a quick clarification of the “intentional foul” issue is needed. While it’s true that nearly every foul committed in the last minute of a close game is not an accident, the term “intentional” in basketball has a more restricted meaning. The “intent” referes to the intent to hit a player, regardless of the position of the ball. Examples would include grabbing a player from behind without making an effort to reach the ball in front of him, or pushing a player in the chest when he goes up for a layup. A foul committed to stop the clock at the end of game usually involves a player hacking at a ballhander’s arms, which although clearly designed to be a foul, does show a desire to make a play on the ball and not just the opponent’s body. That being said, I don’t know if that is actually written in the NCAA rules, as I haven’t read the relevant section. It is, however, how refs are taught to distinguish between normal and intentional fouls. Also, at the end of close games, most refs are reluctant to call an intentional foul on anything short of felony assault

By: Arthegall

Arthegall — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:21:29 +0000

I think the notion of “intention” in sports fouls is interesting. To some extent, every foul is intentional. Soccer (football, I guess, to those outside the U.S.) is another good example: all of the most serious fouls in the game (those whose commission is penalized with a direct kick) require the referee to believe the fouling player also intended to commit the foul. In some circumstances, although it’s rarely called, the intention alone (without actual success in committing the act) is enough to blow the whistle. Back to basketball, where the situation seems to be remarkably different. Consider, in the NBA playoffs two years ago, when Kobe Bryant (with the ball) is swinging his elbows, and hits the forehead of Doug Christie, the man he’s being guarded by…. but Christie is called for the foul. That instance was probably a result of Kobe’s ‘star’ power in the fame-crazed NBA, but it’s a good example of the general effects-based reasoning in basketball fouls. In basketball, the foul is called based on its physical effect, and “intention” is a shorthand for particularly vicious fouls, or those outside the normal run of play. In soccer, “intention” is assumed; occasionally, actions which are obviously unintentional are allowed to pass for precisely this reason. I should say, my knowledge of soccer’s rules is maybe six or seven years old now; I suppose the “official” rules could have changed their wording in the meantime, but that’s the way it used to be…

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:15:45 +0000

I’m interested that no-one has challenged your assertion that you’ve lived your entire life in two of the leading basketball countries of the world. Of course, we know that Australia is the leading country in all sports (except the ones that don’t matter), but I’m a bit surprised the readers accepted it. Having just (last weekend) watched the (Brisbane) Bullets go down narrowly to be eliminated from the semifinals, the second time in a row they blew a big lead, I’m not feeling at all happy about basketball at present. But we’re good odds to win a fourth AFL flag in a row.