Why was John Salmons not fouled?

[RAcker]

It's a simple question.  I'm having a hard time finding a rational explanation for why we didn't foul John Salmons the instant he caught the ball in the 1st overtime.  Why am I having such a problem?

Well the #1 reason I'm having a problem with it is there would have been zero risk of fouling him in the act of a 3 point shot.  He was inside the arc!  If someone had caught the ball outside of the 3 point line, I'd say you have to play them straight up, but we got the perfect scenerio and allowed him to make the pass over the top to Gordon with zero pressure.

Please, someone explain to me what we were thinking.

[CelticsWhat35]

It's a simple question.  I'm having a hard time finding a rational explanation for why we didn't foul John Salmons the instant he caught the ball in the 1st overtime.  Why am I having such a problem?

Well the #1 reason I'm having a problem with it is there would have been zero risk of fouling him in the act of a 3 point shot.  He was inside the arc!  If someone had caught the ball outside of the 3 point line, I'd say you have to play them straight up, but we got the perfect scenerio and allowed him to make the pass over the top to Gordon with zero pressure.

Please, someone explain to me what we were thinking.

9.8 seconds is a lot of time.  The ball was immediately inbounded to Salmons and he passed it to Gordon almost instantly.  It was a well drawn up play.  The best time to have fouled would've been when Gordon took his dribble to the right, but Pierce was out of position.  It was a well executed play.  If they fouled Salmons, we're potentially do the same thing over again with maybe 8 seconds left instead of 10, or perhaps he hits both of his free throws and we only make one of two and then they have a chance to tie with a 2 or win with a 3.

What it all comes down to is Gordon made a tough shot.  You gotta tip your cap to him.  But fouling Salmons with 9 seconds to go wouldn't ensure anything.

[Chris]

The main rationale for not fouling is that if you do foul him, he then hits the two free throws making it a 1 point game.  Then the C's have to inbounds the ball, and then make 2 free throws, just to get it back to a 3 point lead, where the Bulls would still have several seconds left to try for a tie again.  And god forbid the C's missed one of their free throws, and the Bulls could have  won on a 3 pointer. 

While I am not sure what I would have done, given the amount of time left on the clock (I believe 7 seconds), and the fact that even if the Bulls hit the 3, the C's would have another shot to win the game, there is certainly some merit to the argument not to foul, and trust in your defense to contend the shot.

[RAcker]

The main rationale for not fouling is that if you do foul him, he then hits the two free throws making it a 1 point game.  Then the C's have to inbounds the ball, and then make 2 free throws, just to get it back to a 3 point lead, where the Bulls would still have several seconds left to try for a tie again.  And god forbid the C's missed one of their free throws, and the Bulls could have  won on a 3 pointer. 

While I am not sure what I would have done, given the amount of time left on the clock (I believe 7 seconds), and the fact that even if the Bulls hit the 3, the C's would have another shot to win the game, there is certainly some merit to the argument not to foul, and trust in your defense to contend the shot.

This may be the one and only way of looking at it.  I still dig at the ball as it's inbounded and while it's in Salmons' hands.  You either get the steal or commit the 2 shot foul while taking a little time off the clock. 

My biggest problem is we didn't even pressure Salmons at all.  We knew he wasn't taking that shot from where he caught the ball, so why not be all over him?

[Chris]

The main rationale for not fouling is that if you do foul him, he then hits the two free throws making it a 1 point game.  Then the C's have to inbounds the ball, and then make 2 free throws, just to get it back to a 3 point lead, where the Bulls would still have several seconds left to try for a tie again.  And god forbid the C's missed one of their free throws, and the Bulls could have  won on a 3 pointer. 

While I am not sure what I would have done, given the amount of time left on the clock (I believe 7 seconds), and the fact that even if the Bulls hit the 3, the C's would have another shot to win the game, there is certainly some merit to the argument not to foul, and trust in your defense to contend the shot.

This may be the one and only way of looking at it.  I still dig at the ball as it's inbounded and while it's in Salmons' hands.  You either get the steal or commit the 2 shot foul while taking a little time off the clock. 

My biggest problem is we didn't even pressure Salmons at all.  We knew he wasn't taking that shot from where he caught the ball, so why not be all over him?

I do agree with this.  And this is something that should be on a veteran player like Ray Allen, who should be able to decide whether to be aggressive or not.

[RAcker]

The main rationale for not fouling is that if you do foul him, he then hits the two free throws making it a 1 point game.  Then the C's have to inbounds the ball, and then make 2 free throws, just to get it back to a 3 point lead, where the Bulls would still have several seconds left to try for a tie again.  And god forbid the C's missed one of their free throws, and the Bulls could have  won on a 3 pointer. 

While I am not sure what I would have done, given the amount of time left on the clock (I believe 7 seconds), and the fact that even if the Bulls hit the 3, the C's would have another shot to win the game, there is certainly some merit to the argument not to foul, and trust in your defense to contend the shot.

This may be the one and only way of looking at it.  I still dig at the ball as it's inbounded and while it's in Salmons' hands.  You either get the steal or commit the 2 shot foul while taking a little time off the clock. 

My biggest problem is we didn't even pressure Salmons at all.  We knew he wasn't taking that shot from where he caught the ball, so why not be all over him?

I do agree with this.  And this is something that should be on a veteran player like Ray Allen, who should be able to decide whether to be aggressive or not.

Exactly, and I didn't want to call out Ray individually, but Paul did seem awfully shocked that that pass got to Gordon that quickly and easily.

[jdpapa3]

It's just weird because we fouled in these situations last year and it worked. Maybe the players were taught only to foul when the player's back was to the basket.

[QuinielaBox]

Percentage wise - I think you commit intententional fouls with a 3 point lead if there are 6 or less seconds on the clock. It has to do with getting enough time to set up a game winning shot in case you are tied up by the 3 point shot.

I don't have a problem with a decision to not fouling in that situation. We got screwed by Ben Gorden again and Rajon Rondo's gamer back-rimming.

There were a lot of plays left out there - Glen Davis failed to finish on three bunnies - Paul Pierce missed a lot of shots. We got bad breaks from the officials.
The game went against us forcing a long series and increasing the risk of injuries.

But hey, the Celtics are competitive again. That is something we could not say two years ago with a straight face. I'll take competitive over talk about being competitive soon with our "upside". Leave the upside talk to the Oklahomans and New York City area basketball fans.

[RAcker]

It's just weird because we fouled in these situations last year and it worked. Maybe the players were taught only to foul when the player's back was to the basket.

This adds to Salmons question.  He did catch the ball with his back to the basket inside 2 pt territory.  That to me is the perfect time to just take the foul.  Aaaaaah!   

[jdpapa3]

It's just weird because we fouled in these situations last year and it worked. Maybe the players were taught only to foul when the player's back was to the basket.

This adds to Salmons question.  He did catch the ball with his back to the basket inside 2 pt territory.  That to me is the perfect time to just take the foul.  Aaaaaah!   

I had trouble remembering where Salmons was when he passed it to Gordon, but someone messed this one up. It was either Doc or the players and it is tough to know who. It did look like Pierce was a little caught off guard. I lean towards blaming it on Ray since we already know that Doc's philosophy is to foul.

This is one of the things I remember Doc preaching during that training camp special they did on NBATV. The right time/space to foul when the other team is down 3.

[hpantazo]

It's just weird because we fouled in these situations last year and it worked. Maybe the players were taught only to foul when the player's back was to the basket.

This adds to Salmons question.  He did catch the ball with his back to the basket inside 2 pt territory.  That to me is the perfect time to just take the foul.  Aaaaaah!   

I had trouble remembering where Salmons was when he passed it to Gordon, but someone messed this one up. It was either Doc or the players and it is tough to know who. It did look like Pierce was a little caught off guard. I lean towards blaming it on Ray since we already know that Doc's philosophy is to foul.

This is one of the things I remember Doc preaching during that training camp special they did on NBATV. The right time/space to foul when the other team is down 3.

Doc said they always foul in that situation and they just messed up, so I guess it's on whoever was guarding salmons on that play.

[Chris]

It's just weird because we fouled in these situations last year and it worked. Maybe the players were taught only to foul when the player's back was to the basket.

This adds to Salmons question.  He did catch the ball with his back to the basket inside 2 pt territory.  That to me is the perfect time to just take the foul.  Aaaaaah!   

I had trouble remembering where Salmons was when he passed it to Gordon, but someone messed this one up. It was either Doc or the players and it is tough to know who. It did look like Pierce was a little caught off guard. I lean towards blaming it on Ray since we already know that Doc's philosophy is to foul.

This is one of the things I remember Doc preaching during that training camp special they did on NBATV. The right time/space to foul when the other team is down 3.

We don't know Doc wanted them to foul.  There was a lot of time left on the clock.  Perhaps Doc wanted them to foul when there was less time left.  Or maybe he did not want them to foul at all, because he did not want to extend the game and turn it into a foul shooting contest.

[RAcker]

I'd rather extend the game at the freethrow line instead of extending it where we had to play an extra overtime period with a depleted team (Perk out with fouls; Scal out with Fouls; KG and Powe with injury).

I just can't believe there is not more outrage about this coaching move here today.  I expected 1000 posts about this when I logged on this morning and really didn't see anything except stuff about officiating.

Doc and/or the players screwed this one up and I'm upset about it if you can't tell.

[Chris]

I'd rather extend the game at the freethrow line instead of extending it where we had to play an extra overtime period with a depleted team (Perk out with fouls; Scal out with Fouls; KG and Powe with injury).

I just can't believe there is not more outrage about this coaching move here today.  I expected 1000 posts about this when I logged on this morning and really didn't see anything except stuff about officiating.

Doc and/or the players screwed this one up and I'm upset about it if you can't tell.

I am actually surprised there isn't more second guessing as well.  At best, it is an arguable decision, that you could choose to go either way with...and usually those lead to long arguments. 

[D Dub]

Being that we're the defending champs, I'm okay with the choice to trust our defense to get stop. 

It's a 50/50 call by the coaching staff.  Hard to argue difinitively either way.