Pikiell Vindicated For End Game v. Iowa

[RU-ROCS]

I was totally convinced Pike blew it by not defending the inbounds play with 3.3 seconds left. I said it in real time and after the game. I was wrong. There’s no right way to play it. At the end of the Purdue v. Indiana game tonight IU was down 2 with only 3.2 seconds left. Dakich, like Pike, says you should not defend the inbounder and play 5 on 4. But, Painter does defend the inbounder and IU has enough time to dribble past half court and get a pass to a wide open 3 point shot from 4-5 behind the arc. It was totally uncontested. IU missed it but it was a much better look than Iowa got against our D, and Iowa has so many more guys who can shoot 45% from 3.

 

[bac2therac]

why was he vindicated....coaches do it both ways. I think each of these situations plays out differently

 

[ColonelRutgers]

Didn't need to be vindicated. Taking Bohannan out of the play was always the right call.

 

[RU-ROCS]

why was he vindicated....coaches do it both ways. I think each of these situations plays out differently

Because many, including me, said it was an absolute mistake in strategy. I, like many, thought 3.3 seconds would not be enough time to dribble up court and get a good look if the inbounder was defended. The fact that IU did it in 3.2 seconds showed it was possible. That is some for of vindication in my book. But, feel free to disagree.

 

[ColonelRutgers]

Because many, including me, said it was an absolute mistake in strategy. I, like many, thought 3.3 seconds would not be enough time to dribble up court and get a good look if the inbounder was defended. The fact that IU did it in 3.2 seconds showed it was possible. That is some for of vindication in my book. But, feel free to disagree.

If you didn’t know it was possible then you haven’t watched much basketball. That’s on you.

 

[Russ Wood]

Because many, including me, said it was an absolute mistake in strategy. I, like many, thought 3.3 seconds would not be enough time to dribble up court and get a good look if the inbounder was defended. The fact that IU did it in 3.2 seconds showed it was possible. That is some for of vindication in my book. But, feel free to disagree.

If you catch the inbounds pass near the free-throw line and nobody defends you you can get the ball across half-court in two dribbles. And...this is important... if you have a teammate standing near the 3/4 court line smoking a cigarette, because nobody is defending him, you can pass it to him and he can get off a shot.

That's what happened at the end of the Indiana game. No one defended the player dribbling the ball upcourt. He was able to go in a straight line. And no one was defending the guy who took the shot at the buzzer. A 30-footer at that.

So you really have to have a perfect set of circumstances to advance the ball and get off a shot in 3.2 seconds.

 

[sport2231]

Because many, including me, said it was an absolute mistake in strategy. I, like many, thought 3.3 seconds would not be enough time to dribble up court and get a good look if the inbounder was defended. The fact that IU did it in 3.2 seconds showed it was possible. That is some for of vindication in my book. But, feel free to disagree.

This was my point on the round table thread. It was interesting as there was a bunch of different endings tonight in a few different games.

My feeling was, considering the inbounds person can run baseline after a make, the person defending the inbounds pass is essentially useless as long as the inbounder receiving player are on same page

And people underestimate how fast Div 1 players are. A full 3 second before having to shoot is a lifetime in that situation. Not that they can get a perfect shot but 9/10 times will get a better shot than what that kid got against us

 

[Russ Wood]

And people underestimate how fast Div 1 players are. A full 3 second before having to shoot is a lifetime in that situation. Not that they can get a perfect shot but 9/10 times will get a better shot than what that kid got against us

Very true. Especially when they're not defended and can straight line drive. Jesus someone make him change direction lol

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Add to that the refs won’t call moving screens no matter what so the inbound won’t be hard

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The smart move is to guard the inbounder until the ref is a few seconds away from handing the ball off.

 

[TDIrish27]

The smart move IMO is guarding the inbounder.

6'2 Guard taking it out of bounds-------put a 6'10 in front of him with his hands up and the pass doesn't get downcourt IMO.

Then again I would always foul up 3 with under 4 seconds to play and the ball across halfcourt.

 

[Skull83]

I'm glad there is another thread about this because I didn't want to start one. My initial reaction at the game was: why didn't they guard the in-bounds pass? Of course, from where I was sitting I thought Wieskamp drained his shot, I didn't realize it banked in. I also wasn't sure whether the pass was deflected or not. Once I had a chance to watch the replay a few times I realized how well RU executed in the end game situation.

First, it was Geo making his shot - unfortunately there were still 3.3 seconds left, but we were down at the time so you had to take the shot when you could get it. Mission 1 accomplished. On the ensuing play, up by 1, the one thing you absolutely cannot do is foul. Mission 2 accomplished. Coach decided to double Bohannon and take him out of the play. The players executed it well. Mission 3 accomplished. Obviously, many people think you should always guard the in-bounds pass in order to make it difficult to complete the long pass - as it turned out they didn't complete the pass - RU challenged the receivers, Baer went up to catch the pass (confirmed by his coach) and it was contested by Harper I think, Baer couldn't come down with the ball and it deflected off his hands. Mission 4 accomplished. Unfortunately for RU and my heart, the ball deflected to Wieskamp rather than to one of our guys or going out of bounds! Even then, in the ensuing scramble, Doorson was able to get out and contest the shot without fouling. Mission 5 accomplished. The kid then launched a prayer which banked in practically off the top of the backboard!!

Obviously, since they made the ridiculous shot, we can all wish that we had tried anything else hoping for a different result, but I think RU executed well at the end of the game. Contrary to another thread, I think the Iowa game is actually evidence that the team is learning how to win.

 

[RUChow]

Didn't need to be vindicated. Taking Bohannan out of the play was always the right call.

Wrong call for sure. Bohannan would have gotten the ball 80' from the basket with three seconds to go, and with Mathis denying him he may not have gotten it at all. They had to run him off screens all game for him to the ball it as it was. You can't allow the ball to be thrown the length of the court, plain and simple. It was a God awful decision. With Johnson all over the inbounder and Mathis denying Bohannan the ball he probably doesn't even get the inbounds pass.

 

[BigRnj]

He didn’t need to be vindicated. Stop with the I know better nonsense

 

[bac2therac]

Doorson really didnt contest this shot, if anything he lost his man while he was watching the ball get deflected

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

In that spot some coaches defend the inbound and some don't. Neither is right or wrong. I see the merits in both arguments.

 

[Pancho1939]

he did need to vindicated. people were saying it was absolutely the wrong call. at the end of the day i stand by what i said the night of the iowa game. you can play it both ways. their is no right or wrong in that situation...

Russ said well if you let the ball handler dribble up the court uncontested then not guard a guy then obviously they would get a good look with 3 seconds.

However, the same can be applied to the rutgers/iowa game. if a ball is thrown into an area with one offensive player and two defensive players then the two defenders let the offensive player tip the ball into the corner keeping it alive while other defenders fall asleep on the play giving a wide open fade away three than you can lose in under 3 seconds....

bottom line is indiana got a much better shot off than iowa. they just missed it while iowa made it.... sometimes their is no right or wrong it just is.

the biggest problem in situations like that is everyone runs to the ball. play your area play your man. help if you must but everyone cant just run to the ball.

 

[RUBigFrank]

I'm glad the ego of the OP is soothed with this thought.

 

[Skull83]

Sometimes you execute what you want to do pretty well, but the other team still makes a play.

 

[RU MAN]

There is no right way or wrong way. When the freakish shot went in, I immediately thought, "Why didn't we guard the inbound pass?" Then I thought about it overnight and realized what Pike did was the right call by doubling Bohannon. He was shooting 47% from outside the arc.

Last night if you watched the endgame of Maryland/Iowa and Indiana/Purdue, one coach had his team guard the inbound pass and the other team did what Pike did. In both scenarios, the losing team didn't make their miracle shot. We have to realize that Wieskamp's shot was one of those miracle shots one rarely makes in that situation. First he was lucky to have the ball deflected into his hands. The shot was just a ballplayer instinctually shooting toward the basket knowing if he didn't get it out of his hands the clock would wind down to zero. He shot the ball and in inch to the left or even right would have either had the ball doink off the side of the glass or hit so hard on the glass the other way, it would have clanged off the other side of the rim. As it turned out for him and Iowa it was the perfect angled shot leaving all of us stunned, angry and heartbroken.

 

[RUBigFrank]

There is no right way or wrong way. When the freakish shot went in, I immediately thought, "Why didn't we guard the inbound pass?" Then I thought about it overnight and realized what Pike did was the right call by doubling Bohannon. He was shooting 47% from outside the arc.
QUOTE]

I agree here it is a matter of preference in coaching. The shot was just pure luck. Double teaming Bohannon was the strategy - don't let this guy beat you!

 

[G- RUnit]

Quicker to pass the ball then a guy dribbling. Fundamental basketball. I would always guard the inbound pass. The clock is your friend. Make them eat time. Thought Dakich was dead wrong and Purdue did a horrible job too.

Saw RU beat UCLA and ND at Meadowlands using same strategy of guarding inbound.

Saw RU lose to Iowa and Yinka Dare not blocking inbound.

 

[Skull83]

Gotta love the posts that suggest our coaching staff doesn't understand fundamental basketball, cracks me up :)

 

[RU-ROCS]

If you catch the inbounds pass near the free-throw line and nobody defends you you can get the ball across half-court in two dribbles. And...this is important... if you have a teammate standing near the 3/4 court line smoking a cigarette, because nobody is defending him, you can pass it to him and he can get off a shot.

That's what happened at the end of the Indiana game. No one defended the player dribbling the ball upcourt. He was able to go in a straight line. And no one was defending the guy who took the shot at the buzzer. A 30-footer at that.

So you really have to have a perfect set of circumstances to advance the ball and get off a shot in 3.2 seconds.

Agreed. But, they showed it was possible.

 

[RU-ROCS]

Quicker to pass the ball then a guy dribbling. Fundamental basketball. I would always guard the inbound pass. The clock is your friend. Make them eat time. Thought Dakich was dead wrong and Purdue did a horrible job too.

Saw RU beat UCLA and ND at Meadowlands using same strategy of guarding inbound.

Saw RU lose to Iowa and Yinka Dare not blocking inbound.

I was at the Yinka Dare game. That one was worse, as I believe there was less than 2 seconds on the clock for that one. So, there was virtually no way to get off a decent shot if Wenzel defended the inbounder.

 

[RU-ROCS]

If you didn’t know it was possible then you haven’t watched much basketball. That’s on you.

Anything is possible and I’ve watched more than 40 years of basketball. My point was that 3.3 seconds was enough to get a very good look at a wide-open 3 with a person defending the inbounder. That is what surprised me.

 

[ColonelRutgers]

It is possible to pass the ball more than 10 feet even when guarding the inbounder. It’s not either 94 feet with no one guarding the inbounder or 10 with someone guarding.

Didn’t see the UCLA game but ND didn’t have 3.3 seconds. ND had less than 2 seconds at most. They also didn’t have a guard like Bohannan. There was only 1.8 when GW threw it to a 7-2 guy, Dare. These situations are not the same!

 

[Russ Wood]

Agreed. But, they showed it was possible.

Oh it's DEFINITELY possible. I don't think anyone is saying that it is not. If they are, those people are just fooling themselves.

What happened to RU was a combination of dumb luck (Iowa player deflects inbounds pass to an open teammate) and bad defense by Doorson who lost Wieskamp allowing him to cut to the corner and be wide position to receive that lucky deflection.

Was Doorson defending Wieskamp all game? That seems like a mismatch that Weezy would exploit all night.

3.2 seconds is a long time. I used to work in radio and my motto was "give me 12 seconds and I'll tell you how to win a thousand dollars." You can do a lot in 3.2 seconds if you have a plan, are focused and nobody is in your way to stop you.

 

[LOU-RU85]

Oh it's DEFINITELY possible. I don't think anyone is saying that it is not. If they are, those people are just fooling themselves.

What happened to RU was a combination of dumb luck (Iowa player deflects inbounds pass to an open teammate) and bad defense by Doorson who lost Wieskamp allowing him to cut to the corner and be wide position to receive that lucky deflection.

Was Doorson defending Wieskamp all game? That seems like a mismatch that Weezy would exploit all night.

3.2 seconds is a long time. I used to work in radio and my motto was "give me 12 seconds and I'll tell you how to win a thousand dollars." You can do a lot in 3.2 seconds if you have a plan, are focused and nobody is in your way to stop you.

This. Agree 100%

 

[RUsince52]

To say either decision on how to defend the last pass is neither right or wrong is a maybe. Of the two available options, one could be a better choice percentage wise. The CS is limited by time as to what they want to do, but there could be back to back TOs to help. Iowa used theirs and I don't remember if we still had one left.
Anyway, the decision was made to not let Bohannan get the last shot and denying the inbound pass to him. We basically used two players to cover him and made it a 3 on 3 game. Should still have been easy to defend man to man, just don't get distracted and stay with your man. (Doorson made that mistake. A split second before his man was standing with him on the key and than he was in the corner).
The inbounder was left handed and could realistically only throw the ball from that side of the court. Guard him and it doesn't matter if he runs the baseline toward the basket and beyond because he only has 5 seconds. Any long pass would have to be a higher, looping throw, easier to defend. A pass to Bohannon would have to be toward the corner or near the foul line and he would be dribbling in the wrong direction to start, maybe wasting time.
As it turned out, they lucked out and won the game. If that shot doesn't go in, nobody gives it a second thought and the decision is right. Maybe they learned something, but I would have played it differently. Fans will be fans.

 

[Russ Wood]

Why was Doorson defending Weezy? Was that the matchup throughout the game?

 

[RU-ROCS]

Why was Doorson defending Weezy? Was that the matchup throughout the game?

No. Just the result of a mad scrabble at the 3 point circle where the ball was deflected a couple of times into the corner.

 

[Russ Wood]

No. Just the result of a mad scrabble at the 3 point circle where the ball was deflected a couple of times into the corner.

Nope, Doorson was on Weezy the entire inbounds play. Weezy was just hanging out in the paint, then cut to the corner when he saw where the pass went.

 

[bac2therac]

actually Doorson was defending another guy at first....that guy was the one who ran to the pass believe it or not....Harper was original on Weezy who then blocked Doorsons path as the other guy from Iowa ran to the ball. I will say this looks like it was a well executed play by Iowa and great set up by Fran, no it didnt work exactly how they wanted it to but alot of it did though, they were able to take Doorson who is RU's biggest player out of the play. Harper and gimpy Eugene too small to cover that pass.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Didn't need to be vindicated. Taking Bohannan out of the play was always the right call.

We could have put the big on the inbound.. but it was a freak play.. the pass was deflected, stayed inbounds and the Iowa frosh made a great play and hit a miracle shot. Doubling Bohannon was the right choice.

The frosh went to the ball.. wasn't just watching the play. If someone stayed on him that would have been that.

 

[RU848789]

To me, what matters most is whether the inbounder can run the baseline or not. In this case, after a made shot, he can and I imagine a quick guard could negate the influence of a tall guy defending the inbounds pass, which means you have one less guy covering the 4 trying to catch the ball. I think Pike played it right, but we just got unlucky on the tip (although we really ought to be able to do more than tip a long pass).

 

[G- RUnit]

Gotta love the posts that suggest our coaching staff doesn't understand fundamental basketball, cracks me up :)

Or that there are two very different schools of thought. Check the Christian Laetner shot and get back to me. It's not rocket science. Far quicker to pass than dribble. i would always cover the inbounder. The clock is your friend.
RU has won two last second games UCLA and ND guarding inbounds. God Bless Mike Brown! Lost two not guarding inbound, Yinka and Iowa. Make dribbler run to the ball and then change direction. Time consuming. If that's fundamental so be it.