My one and only post on the game....

thunderclap

Redshirt
Feb 25, 2008
3,089
0
0
I still can't believe, won't believe it later, won't believe it tomorrow or next week or next month, that we decided to foul up by three at the end of regulation with 7 seconds left. They were 3 of 14 from three. At best, they have to shoot a 22-footer with a hand in the face and that is their only, I repeat only chance to tie.

So what do we do? Extend the game for them. Give them two chances to tie instead of one.

The team deserved to win. Stans did a great job. All but this decision. Wasn't there anyone on the staff that could've said, "Hey, they've only hit two all day. They very likely can't hit a hurried shot with a man in the face. Why give them more than one chance?"

Anyway, hope we get in. But who the 17 knows. 17ing blows.
 

Bulldog from Birth

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2007
2,468
1,022
113
What was more likely? UK making a 3 pointer when they were 3 of 14 at the time. Or UK making the play they did to tie it? I'll take my chances forcing them to do what they did all day long.

BFB
 

thunderclap

Redshirt
Feb 25, 2008
3,089
0
0
and scoring, are a helluva lot better than them shooting a 25-foot three pointer while closely defended. They got two shots off after the rebound. Play it straight, they get one chance from who knows where. Instead they got two inside the three-point line.
 

skydawg1

All-Conference
Jul 31, 2007
4,339
1,099
113
but it's an even better call if we were up by 4 or more. Being up by 3 and making that call....well we see the downside now. Hey, but even the great Coach Cal said it was the right call. Mm-hmm. Poor 'ol Stans is damned if he does, damned if he don't.

Good game <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">boys</span> MEN.
 

lawdawg02

Redshirt
Jan 23, 2007
4,120
0
0
I hate fouling when a three only ties. The clock is your friend - don't stop it. Hell, Wall was on the line, but if he hits that three, they WIN at the buzzer.

They aren't a good deep shooting team. They are a very good rebounding team. You make them make a contested three to tie at the worst.

We also didn't put any rebounders on the lane during our FTs late in regulation, even the 1 and 1's. I don't understand why we did that.
 

mjh94

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
1,317
0
36
nobody would be sayin a gd thing. period. this is just rambling from madness in my opinion.
 

thunderclap

Redshirt
Feb 25, 2008
3,089
0
0
I thought hell 17ing no. You don't extend the game for the other team. Not with Phil Turner, yes Phil Turner, low on the block to rebound with everybody from Kentucky crashing. It took a lot for it to work out for them, but we're the ones who gave them the extra opportunities with the foul.
 

mjh94

Redshirt
Mar 3, 2008
1,317
0
36
but if it had worked nobody would be saying anything.. nothing. if we let them shoot the 3, and they made it, somebody would be saying "they were due a 17in 3, why in the hell would you let them shoot one?"
 

Columbus Dawg

Redshirt
Feb 23, 2008
1,642
0
0
The decision to foul or not to foul is made in the huddle or before the ball is inbounded. Most of the top coaches that advocate fouling when they are up by three say to do so when the possession starts with 5 or fewer seconds. That way, by the time the foul is committed there is at most 2 or 3 seconds left.

With the possession starting with 8 seconds, UK still had 5 seconds after the foul. Meaning they had time to get 2 shots up after the free throw was missed. TWO. Not only that, if we had gotten the rebound after the missed free throw, UK still would have had one last chance for a desperation heave.
 

wbc40

Redshirt
Feb 25, 2008
848
0
15
I think the Stansbury made the right call. Yeah, they were 3/15 from beyond the arc, but considering how clutch they play and the fact they missed the front end of two different crucial 1 and 1's, Rick did the right thing by putting them on the free throw line. It 17ing backfired, and that sucks, but that doesn't make it the wrong call.