With all of the other reviews last night, that 3-point shot was not reviewed. "We didn't see it," Golden said. "That's on me."
I thought I saw Golden protest that shot and the ref ignored him. That call should not have been missed in real time.
They missed the toe on the line and I was far from the shot and saw it. I used to direct (ref) foil fencing. It is much harder than reffing basketball. Things happen way faster and the timings are critical. Much more difficult than a simple block/charge call almost all of the time. I got really good at reviewing the actions in slo-mo from memory.
Right, but one can assume they did not take a look back at it. The announcers mentioned the protocol was for the refs to review it at the next stoppage; apparently, neither the refs or Golden or even the announcers brought it up. It’s one point and we lost by one point. It’s only the principle to me; they looked at more video reviews I have ever seen in a basketball game but neglected to review an important one that perhaps affected the final score. I think this game got away from the referees and they looked amateurish to me.
I would have fouled in that situation only if we could have fouled the 38% shooter. I thought we had fouled that guy when we committed the foul, but when I saw it wasn't him, I said: "Oh no!" On the bright side (for me anyway), it seems like we were out-shot, out-rebounded, out-ball security-ed, and still somehow only lost by a point. Missouri played very well and, Wow!, did they do a lot of reaching without (apparently) fouling. Very aggressive! I've been impressed with our switching defense recently (specifically against the Vols and the Hogs) in terms of how well we've defended the paint. Missouri's spread attack (and some incredible shooting early in the game) was more effective against it, but I still like the general approach we've been taking on defense.
While fouling w/ 20 seconds to go or not fouling is debatable, I think another point has been lost that is not even close to debatable. That is our end-of-half possessions. In 3 of our 4 SEC games we had the ball w/ less than 30 seconds to go in the half- in other words, no shot clock. The analytics or just basic math, is really clear in this situation... HOLD THE FRIGGIN BALL until about 5 seconds are left, then launch. If you miss, there's still time for your guy to grab an offensive rebound and perhaps make a late shot. But there's not time for the other team to rebound and get to their end of the courst. If you make, again, not enough time for the other team to go the length of the floor because the clock runs in that situation. If all else fails, you just simply HOLD THE BALL until the clock expires. That way, both teams end up with zero points. The math is clear, the WORST thing you can do is commit a TO and give them a chance. Yet we have done this not once, not twice, but THREE times in our 4 SEC games. I'm shocked, really shocked, Golden hasn't addressed this. It's just math. It really hurt us vs UK (4-5 point swing) and it didn't help vs Mizzou even though they didn't score.
I think that was an excellent foul. If I recall correctly, the guy was was a sub 40% FT shooter. Of course the guy makes both, but it was the right call to foul that guy, imho.
Nope, that was earlier in the game. The guy we fouled in the last 30 seconds was a good foul shooter.
For every person saying not to foul there’s someone saying to foul and play the odds. Unfortunately math IS basketball, that’s why teams aim to shoot 3s and easy 2s, less mid-range jumpers. Virtually every NBA and college team uses math now. If it didn’t work, a team could play old style basketball - but they don’t, because the math supports the current style and choices like this sometimes - like it or not.
I understand. And you are right. But I would draw a distinction between using math to determine shot selection… versus a decision to either play defense or concede free throws.
Well then that is dumb math, I agree I agree there is some difference there. In situations where you’re up 3 with a few seconds left for example sometimes I like fouling to avoid the 3ptFGA and potential tie, especially if you’re putting a bad FT shooter on the line and you have good FT shooters on the floor. Being down 1 or 2 is a diffferent scenario, depending how much time is left. If they have a sub 40 shooter on the floor and you’re pretty confident he’ll choke it might be smart to foul him vs playing defens. As annoying as Hack a Shaq was it often worked. It’s all about who you’re fouling, whether you’re leading or down and how much time is left. I wouldn’t say it’s a hard and fast rule but understand there are some too that just like to play straight up D and live or die by the trust in getting a stop. Just different styles. I’m definitely not against using math though to make those decisions.
Actually...and I'm not saying this facetiously...with the explosive growth of AI programming over the last two years, this would be an easy thing to take the guesswork out of. CTG is an analytics and metrics guy, but he has to make these decisions on the fly and within a few seconds. I can envision an AI that is tracking in real-time the action on the floor (score, time left in game, time on shot clock, etc.) and measuring it against the statistical histories of every player on the court as well as statistical outcomes of thousands of game results, and tell the coach exactly when to foul and who to foul for the best probable outcome. The coach could have this info all on his electronic clipboard. I'm not saying it would be good for the sport. I don't want to see the human coaching element diminished. But at the moment it would be within the rules, unless I'm mistaken. Get to work on this, you programmers.
