The Goaltended Free Throw

by Truzenzuzex on Mar 15, 2008 4:30 PM EDT in Basketball Comment 19 comments

Cat fans have been wondering why Stevenson was ordered to goaltend the second free throw at the end of the game. A poster at The Cats Pause came up with an explanation that makes perfect sense, and I am slapping myself in the, "I could have had a V8!" kind of way.

UK had no timeouts. If the shooter had missed the second free throw, the clock would have started and UK would not have been able to get the last-second three pointer to (in that case) win the game.

So Gillispie ordered Stevenson to goaltend and draw a T. That counted the free throw, putting Georgia up three. The gamble is that Georgia misses both technical fouls, and Kentucky gets the ball on the baseline with the full 1.2 seconds remaining for a last-second 3-point bomb to tie and force a second overtime.

The gamble didn't work, but you have to admit, it was really a good idea. Given our position at the time, it isn't as though we had a lot of options, but allowing a rebound on the second FT attempt would likely have ended the game without a shot attempt from anywhere. As it was, Bradley nearly banked in a 50-foot prayer that would have been for the tie if Humphrey had missed both technical free throws.

Smart coaching. I was just too dumb to see it.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

SEC Tourney a Disaster.....but

we have to move on.....play the next game now..hopefully in the Big Dance. As much as I love coach and love UK, I honestly have to say that I cannot wait until this season is over. I really think the gas tank is just about on empty........what a year and we still win at least 18 games. New coach, injuries, bad calls, bad weather, etc........it cannot end soon enough.....I can, however, wait two more weeks....but I will sleep just as well if we lose our first tournament game as well.......

These kids give their all.....

by Chuck Alexinis on Mar 15, 2008 5:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Next Year

I am VERY excited for next year also! I can't wait to see what BCG and the boys have in store for us....

Don't forget, recruiting for next year isn't complete yet--that's when Billy does maybe his best work. There are sure to be more suprises in store before April 16!

(after this year's tournament of course!)

by BigSkyCat on Mar 15, 2008 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

to correct myself,

signing period is April 16-May 21

holding baby--typing with one hand! Gosh!

by BigSkyCat on Mar 15, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm even dumber!!

I didn't realize a goaltended freethrow WAS a technical foul.

I guess I've never seen this happen before--or even considered the possibility of it happening.

by blue kentucky girl on Mar 15, 2008 5:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he was wanting a T

I am not sure that really was a T, but just goal tending. Which would have given them 1 point and then we would get the ball back with a chance to tie. I am guessing that is what CBG was thinking. I am more mad about that missed foul that the refs missed on Bradley the play before and then they had the nerve to call the foul to put Georgia on the line in the first place.

by BlueBloodedCatsFan on Mar 15, 2008 5:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gillispie's postgame comment...

From http://www.secsports.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=3&url_article_id=10680&change_well_ id=2

Q. Will you talk about the last I assume Perry Stevenson blocked that free throw on your direction. What was your thought process there?

COACH GILLISPIE: I just wanted to make sure that we were going to step in the lane and make sure that they didn't miss the free throw because we were going to try to throw another pass. We had already tried to throw a long pass, and it went out of bounds, and that didn't work the first time. We wanted to be three down, and I didn't know the rule. I didn't know it was an automatic technical. So that's my fault on that.

We wanted to make sure that we were three down, and we didn't want to give him a chance to miss the free throw.

by bluenva on Mar 15, 2008 5:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not so sure on the logic.

That guaranteed a 3-point game and allowed a good FT shooter 2 chances to reduce Kentucky's odds to zero. It seems to me that the goaltend offered UK a lower likelihood of tying/winning in the last 1.2 seconds than simply hoping for the one FT attempt to go in, or hoping for a miracle rebound/bomb on a missed FT.

UGA had nobody at the key for a rebound, so UK could have executed a controlled rebound with a fair opportunity at a desperation lob.

But either way, this is really splitting hairs on a decision for a desperate last-second hope. I can't fall in the category of calling it a genius call, but I am certainly not going to criticize a decision made in that situation that has any kind of logical reasoning behind it.

by hooper on Mar 15, 2008 5:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

With bluenva's post directly above this one,

That should be amended. I see his logic when you account for his assumption of not drawing a technical. That makes a lot more sense.

by hooper on Mar 15, 2008 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very Clever

I was listening on the radio and the announcer said that all Georgia had to do was miss the FT than the clock would start...the PS got the calll...my first thought was "That's Brilliant!"....then they call the T. Oh well it was a good thought

Silver lining to today: Assuming we are still in the tournament (which I am) this probably dropped us in the seeding...potential 12 seed, right where I want to be this year.

by sylvar on Mar 15, 2008 5:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

One more thing...

should the Cats get in this loss will benefit them. They looked exhausted out there. Joe was grabbing his knees shortly into the second half. The iron man thing is coming to a finish soon.

by bluecrip on Mar 15, 2008 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Technical?

Does anyone know why blocking a free throw would be a technical? It seems appropriate just to award the player the point, but aren't technicals usually reserved for unsportsmanlike behavior or actions? And while we're at it, why would calling a timeout when your team has exhausted their allotment warrant a technical. Why can't the refs just not award the TO?

If you know the the answers to these mysteries that have bothered me for years, I'd love to hear your answers. I will not accept "because GERALD BOUDREAUX said so."

by Thomas Hunt Morgan on Mar 15, 2008 7:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Here is the rule:

Art. 1. When the violation is at the basket of the opponent of the offending player, the offended team shall be awarded:
a. One point for basket interference or one point and (men) an indirect technical foul or (women) a player/substitute technical foul for goaltending when, during a free throw, the ball is on its upward or downward flight.
b. Two points when during a two-point field-goal try.
c. Three points when during a three-point field-goal try.

It's just an indirect technical foul, like calling a timeout you don't have or attempting to shoot free throws when you weren't the fouled party. Technicals are awarded for unsportsmanlike behavior, but not all of them are directed at it. They are also awarded for an illegal stoppage of play or interfering with normal play (delay of game, etc.)

by Truzenzuzex on Mar 15, 2008 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tennessee

bites it AS USUAL!!!!!! Give Bruce a pearl necklace!!!!

by bluecrip on Mar 15, 2008 8:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

No way

You're completely wrong Tru. Like Bluenva said, BG made a mistake. That would be a terrible strategy if thats what he meant to do. A guy on TV was saying all you have to do is keep stepping in the lane (and giving them free shots) until he makes it or airballs it. That would be the best strategy.

by GatorBoys on Mar 16, 2008 3:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well ...

he made a mistake in that he didn't know it was a technical. But even with the technical, it wasn't bad strategy, just less good than if there wasn't one.

I have a question for you, GatorBoys -- how does one know "when he makes it?" You do realize that you have to step into the lane before the shot hits the rim, right? And you do realize that the closer you wait to that moment, the less likely the officials are to call a lane violation, right?

Nobody has an eye that good, and even if you assumed they did, the official would have simply not called the violation after one or two.

I have read that strategy before, and it is stupid. Nobody's good enough to do that every time, and the officials are much to clever to be baited into calling it every time. Not only that, the shooter could just break his normal rhythm and shoot up a rocket right at the rim, reducing your margin of error.

The only good way is what he did, and even though he didn't know it was a tech, it really didn't matter -- it was his only chance.

by Truzenzuzex on Mar 16, 2008 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Perhaps

Thats a good point about him just rocketing one up. But as soon as the Ref gives him the ball or blows his whistle you can step in the lane. Bradley (I think) did it, but then there was the goaltending. I'd think u have a better chance shooting a full-court shot off a miss than hoping a guy misses 2 FTs and then trying a Laettner pass.

by GatorBoys on Mar 16, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With utmost respect, I will disagree.

If the fact that it's a technical is accounted for, the strategy would have been a bad one. It guaranteed a 3-point difference and gave UGA's best FT shooter 2 shots to make it an insurmountable 4-point (or 5-point) difference. And even if you got really lucky and he missed both technical FTs, you still have the highly improbable full-court inbounds play with only 1.2 second. The odds on the inbounds are a little better than on the full-court rebound-bomb, but that's only if you don't account for the missing of 2 FTs. Brewer is an 89% free-throw shooter, so your odds of surviving 2 are roughly 1 percent. Factor that into the whole thing, and (I believe that) you're playing longer odds with the technical than with the rebound.

Now, since the technical wasn't accounted for, the strategy makes a lot more sense. You have 1.2 seconds for a 3-point attempt on an inbounds rather than a full-court heave. There, the odds are certainly better for UK. Should BCG have known about the technical rule? Certainly. But I'm quite willing to give lenience about that when he was really grasping at anything he could think of to tie the game up. It's much like Les Miles being slow to call a timeout; the mind can only process so much, and BCG's was still occupied by the failed foul attempt on the previous inbounds. It was a frustrating 24 hours for him, and it's not worth criticizing a snap decision at that point in time.

by hooper on Mar 16, 2008 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Some odds ...

are better than none.

But the bottom line is, if Gillispie had known it was an automatic tech, He would have just had Stephenson violate. What he wanted to do was concede the free throw so Georgia wouldn't have a chance to kill the game.

As I said, even with the technical, it wasn't completely flawed, it just wasn't ideal. As you say, you don't want to put the best shooter on the team on the line for 2 points on purpose, and Gillispie just didn't know the rule.

As GatorBoys points out above, you could just repeatedly violate just before the shot leaves the shooter's hand. It is a bit risky, though, because if I were a shooter determined to miss a free throw, I would just fake my normal routine and fire the ball at the rim quick and hard, making a violation almost impossible.

In any case, it was a desperate move, and by definition, desperation usually fails.

by Truzenzuzex on Mar 16, 2008 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs