Halftime and Third Fouls

[fluoxetine]

Lots of people in the game thread saying things like:

He was getting a little physical and extending arms posting for ball. Could gave led to a foul. Worked out but 100% disagree with him in game. He picks up 3rd and whole 2nd half screwed

Halftime is not magical. No one complains when Ace comes out to start the 2nd half with two fouls. The difference between 0:30 in the first half and 20:00 in the second half is.. thirty seconds. The fact that halftime is in between is not consequential for strategy purposes.

 

[Unionst]

Well said. It used to be (70’s, 80’s) that a player wasn’t pulled in the first half until three fouls.

 

[ancienthooper]

Well said. It used to be (70’s, 80’s) that a player wasn’t pulled in the first half until three fouls.

Good point, and often the team would go zone to try and protect him.

 

[BigRnj]

Smart teams and coaches will adjust their play to put that player in jeopardy of picking up the 3rd+ foul early on. It impacts the game.

One of my teams (Middle school level) was getting killed in the first half by an opposing guard with a hot hand. The kid picked up a late third foul in the 2nd quarter AND THEY KEPT HIM IN for the last 45 seconds or so. I called a TO and told my point guard to dribble strait at him, run him over if you have to, but dribble at him. He got his 4th.

When they brought him back in late in the 3rd Q we repeated this and he fouled out. Point is coaches can make some dumb decisions by being greedy. His 4th and 5th foul were more costly than the extra basket he might have scored.

 

[bethlehemfan]

Smart teams and coaches will adjust their play to put that player in jeopardy of picking up the 3rd+ foul early on. It impacts the game.

One of my teams (Middle school level) was getting killed in the first half by an opposing guard with a hot hand. The kid picked up a late third foul in the 2nd quarter AND THEY KEPT HIM IN for the last 45 seconds or so. I called a TO and told my point guard to dribble strait at him, run him over if you have to, but dribble at him. He got his 4th.

When they brought him back in late in the 3rd Q we repeated this and he fouled out. Point is coaches can make some dumb decisions by being greedy. His 4th and 5th foul were more costly than the extra basket he might have scored.

Depending on how he got the two fouls is also a consideration for younger players imo. If it was carelessness or laziness sitting them for the remainder of a half can be used as a motivational factor and give them time to dwell on why they are sitting. Depends on the player imo. On the other side going after someone at those ages in particular can be a good strategy.

 

[fluoxetine]

To be clear I'm not suggesting that taking players out because of foul trouble is dumb. I'm just saying it should be viewed on a continuium instead of this stark dividing line at halftime. People seem to think 20:30 left and 20:00 left are very different because with 20:30 left we are still in the first half.

 

[NickRU714]

To be clear I'm not suggesting that taking players out because of foul trouble is dumb. I'm just saying it should be viewed on a continuium instead of this stark dividing line at halftime. People seem to think 20:30 left and 20:00 left are very different because with 20:30 left we are still in the first half.

This makes sense.
Imagine there was no halftime.

If the thought is 20:30 left in the game is to early to risk getting a 3rd foul - take him out, then would you really sub him back in at 20:00 left in the game?
No, you'd probably wait longer.
Wait until maybe 17:00min left for example.

But if the player wasn't out to start the 2nd half (20:00min left) everyone would freak out on the coach.

 

[NickRU714]

If Ace picked up his 3rd foul in the first minute of the 2nd half and has to sit, nobody is saying "Well he shouldn't have been out there with 2 fouls" when it's the same situation as if he picked up the foul in the last minute of the 1st half.

It's like how football coaches just default to punting because it's "safe and not controversial" with the public even if it's the wrong decision.

 

[RU677381]

To be clear I'm not suggesting that taking players out because of foul trouble is dumb. I'm just saying it should be viewed on a continuium instead of this stark dividing line at halftime. People seem to think 20:30 left and 20:00 left are very different because with 20:30 left we are still in the first half.

Three fouls before halftime gives the opposing coach lots of time to plan for the fourth and fifth.

 

[Shelby65]

Smart teams and coaches will adjust their play to put that player in jeopardy of picking up the 3rd+ foul early on. It impacts the game.

One of my teams (Middle school level) was getting killed in the first half by an opposing guard with a hot hand. The kid picked up a late third foul in the 2nd quarter AND THEY KEPT HIM IN for the last 45 seconds or so. I called a TO and told my point guard to dribble strait at him, run him over if you have to, but dribble at him. He got his 4th.

When they brought him back in late in the 3rd Q we repeated this and he fouled out. Point is coaches can make some dumb decisions by being greedy. His 4th and 5th foul were more costly than the extra basket he might have scored.

Says the self-proclaimed smart coach who misspelled the very word he bolded. Smart indeed.

 

[Shelby65]

To be clear I'm not suggesting that taking players out because of foul trouble is dumb. I'm just saying it should be viewed on a continuium instead of this stark dividing line at halftime. People seem to think 20:30 left and 20:00 left are very different because with 20:30 left we are still in the first half.

It's a fair point, but there's more to it than just the minimal game clock difference.

1. you're protecting a player from himself, giving him added time off court to think about the consequences of another foul rather than risk one, especially a freshman, and someone you can't afford to lose.

2a. like it or not, calling fouls is a nuanced dance between refs and coaches....one coach will bitch about a team foul discrepancy and that gets corrected via calls that may not even be legit.

2b. leaving a player in upsets the ref psychology. it's almost a dare. some refs on a power trip will go out of their way to call a third first half foul just because the coach ignores this unwritten rule some refs seem to have.

Shelby realizes 2b may seem like a conspiracy theory, but it happens.

So no, it's not the same thing to manage fouls over a 40 minute span as two halves.

 

[BillyC80]

Three fouls before halftime gives the opposing coach lots of time to plan for the fourth and fifth.

Agreed. It also makes halftime partially a discussion about how can we protect Ace from getting his 4th foul, when that time might be put to better use strategizing about other stuff.

 

[fluoxetine]

It's a fair point, but there's more to it than just the minimal game clock difference.

1. you're protecting a player from himself, giving him added time off court to think about the consequences of another foul rather than risk one, especially a freshman, and someone you can't afford to lose.

2a. like it or not, calling fouls is a nuanced dance between refs and coaches....one coach will bitch about a team foul discrepancy and that gets corrected via calls that may not even be legit.

2b. leaving a player in upsets the ref psychology. it's almost a dare. some refs on a power trip will go out of their way to call a third first half foul just because the coach ignores this unwritten rule some refs seem to have.

Shelby realizes 2b may seem like a conspiracy theory, but it happens.

So no, it's not the same thing to manage fouls over a 40 minute span as two halves.

What, why would a ref care if a player is in with 2 fouls in the 1st half? It’s not even that unusual. Fluoxetine thinks Shelby turned up the troll factor a little too much on this one.

 

[Shelby65]

What, why would a ref care if a player is in with 2 fouls in the 1st half? It’s not even that unusual. Fluoxetine thinks Shelby turned up the troll factor a little too much on this one.

Yes, yes. On the surface you are right. It shouldn't matter to a ref. Silly Shelby. He gets it. But let him explain another way: do you think a coach may leave a player in assuming a ref will not have the stones to call a 3rd foul on the player in the first half ? Sort of a game of chicken ? Shelby thinks some power-trip refs will try to win that foul call dance.

anyhow, do you disagree with the above point 1 ?

 

[fluoxetine]

Yes, yes. On the surface you are right. It shouldn't matter to a ref. Silly Shelby. He gets it. But let him explain another way: do you think a coach may leave a player in assuming a ref will not have the stones to call a 3rd foul on the player in the first half ? Sort of a game of chicken ? Shelby thinks some power-trip refs will try to win that foul call dance.

anyhow, do you disagree with the above point 1 ?

Regarding bolded, no not really.

Point 1 is potentially valid.

 

[Shelby65]

Regarding bolded, no not really.

Point 1 is potentially valid

Re: reffing psychology. Is ‘swallowing the whistle’ a thing ? Do you agree a coach may instruct the D to be more aggressive in the final seconds of a game knowing he’s more likely to get away with it ?

Do you think Mahomes gets gift calls?

Shelby thinks psychology matters. It’s a dance. Some refs don’t want to be put in the position to not call a foul and will do so win the power/dance. Just Shelby’s opinion

 

[hrdcorhays]

It makes sense because a player is most likely to be tired leading into the half, and tired players are more likely to pick up a ticky tack foul. Offense/defense subs is the way to do it if someone is as hot as Ace was at the end of the 1H.

 

[Shelby65]

It makes sense because a player is most likely to be tired leading into the half, and tired players are more likely to pick up a ticky tack foul. Offense/defense subs is the way to do it if someone is as hot as Ace was at the end of the 1H.

Good point.