|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Mar 9, 2020 7:20:21 GMT -8
It would not help us as She Fouled out quickly. One more foul maybe 4 more minutes. The Technicals certainly Hurt the team more than help. Those are on the Coach. We have one really quick player but the better Teams have more Team speed than we do. Scott’s offense is not based on quick attack and go to Rim like u of o. We must adjust our style and make Teams pay. We did it for 3 quarters against Cal, but not against Stanford with their length. Taylor Jones did not foul out against Stanford. Coach Rueck opted to go with a smaller lineup in the 4th quarter and the Beavs got back in the game, cutting the deficit to 8 with plenty of time left. |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Mar 9, 2020 8:31:10 GMT -8
Modifying or eliminating the 5-fouls rule just removes a tactical element of the game, and thus makes the game that much less interesting. As it stands, coaches on both sides have to make tough decisions. Do we leave Taylor in with two fouls in the second period? Do we switch up defenses to give her more help? Does the other team attack the lane, accepting that they'll probably get smothered but hoping for that third foul? To me, second-guessing the tactical interplay is almost as much fun as watching a Taylor Jones block.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyrider on Mar 9, 2020 9:19:07 GMT -8
Modifying or eliminating the 5-fouls rule just removes a tactical element of the game, and thus makes the game that much less interesting. As it stands, coaches on both sides have to make tough decisions. Do we leave Taylor in with two fouls in the second period? Do we switch up defenses to give her more help? Does the other team attack the lane, accepting that they'll probably get smothered but hoping for that third foul? To me, second-guessing the tactical interplay is almost as much fun as watching a Taylor Jones block. You make a very good point. However, what the 5 foul rule also does is benefit the "fat cats" (U-Conn, Louisville, Oregon(as long as Phil Knight is around),etc.). Those teams are able to collect the most talented rosters and thus have more high quality players than the others of the women's college basketball world (OSU and just about everybody else).
In other words, the "fat cats" can afford to lose more players who foul out, than the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Mar 9, 2020 9:29:56 GMT -8
Modifying or eliminating the 5-fouls rule just removes a tactical element of the game, and thus makes the game that much less interesting. As it stands, coaches on both sides have to make tough decisions. Do we leave Taylor in with two fouls in the second period? Do we switch up defenses to give her more help? Does the other team attack the lane, accepting that they'll probably get smothered but hoping for that third foul? To me, second-guessing the tactical interplay is almost as much fun as watching a Taylor Jones block. You make a very good point. However, what the 5 foul rule also does is benefit the "fat cats" (U-Conn, Louisville, Oregon(as long as Phil Knight is around),etc.). Those teams are able to collect the most talented rosters and thus have more high quality players than the others of the women's college basketball world (OSU and just about everybody else).
In other words, the "fat cats" can afford to lose more players who foul out, than the rest of us.
I don't necessarily agree with that. uo and UConn play mainly 7-8 person rotations. I don't see the 5 foul rule benefiting them greatly. You could argue that it would benefit a team like ASU more who uses the hockey style rotations. |
|
|
|
Post by scottybooks on Mar 9, 2020 9:40:23 GMT -8
Coach pulls players with two fouls too quickly, too conservatively. Several games over the past two years have been adversely affected by Pivec removals, Joneslessness. Joking: does he score a contract bonus for limiting DQ's? What good does an excellent starter do on the bench with four fouls as the game ends?
Let Jones foul out vs. 12 minutes playing time? I'd rather see more #44 and take a chance on the DQ. After all, she's the conference leading blocker, 60% shooter, underrated shot alterer, good rebounder, foul drawer.
|
|
|
|
Post by wbosh15 on Mar 9, 2020 9:51:37 GMT -8
Coach pulls players with two fouls too quickly, too conservatively. Several games over the past two years have been adversely affected by Pivec removals, Joneslessness. Joking: does he score a contract bonus for limiting DQ's? What good does an excellent starter do on the bench with four fouls as the game ends?
Let Jones foul out vs. 12 minutes playing time? I'd rather see more #44 and take a chance on the DQ. After all, she's the conference leading blocker, 60% shooter, underrated shot alterer, good rebounder, foul drawer.
It's not just SR. It's a systematic issue with basketball. Coaches are much too conservative on how they deal with fouls, however it's the case with coaches everywhere. They tend to want to protect the case of the foul out, but for everyone one game a player would foul out early, there is probably 4 or more others where you are limited minutes for your best players. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Mar 9, 2020 10:02:42 GMT -8
Sometimes fresh(wo)man players don’t know how to play with fouls.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Mar 9, 2020 10:04:40 GMT -8
SR would be different in many respects with depth at the 4 and 5. If a team is not deep at a position or a player is a stat filler you tend to be conservative as long as your team is holding their own. But, fouls are much more than officiating... good or bad. Players get tired/lazy/lose focus, they play vs more athletic/mobile players, they are in the wrong place and the wrong time, their hustle for a loose bal is a split second slower than an opponent, etc.
Changing the foul rule is not ever nor will be an actual discussion for a rule change. So in a way it is a "commandment". As far as Taylor is concerned she gets herself into much of her foul troubles. She has a habit of reaching over smaller players and reaching/grabbing vs moving her feet on help defense. If you watch replays she actually probably could be called for more fouls than she shouldn't be called for. Taylor had a good season, but she'll be much better when she gets a bit stronger, more mobile, and uses her hands less on defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Mar 9, 2020 10:07:25 GMT -8
So what you are saying is don't have a limit on fouls or maybe 10 fouls per player? This very possibly could have changed my life in high school! |
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Mar 9, 2020 10:28:39 GMT -8
Modifying or eliminating the 5-fouls rule just removes a tactical element of the game, and thus makes the game that much less interesting. As it stands, coaches on both sides have to make tough decisions. Do we leave Taylor in with two fouls in the second period? Do we switch up defenses to give her more help? Does the other team attack the lane, accepting that they'll probably get smothered but hoping for that third foul? To me, second-guessing the tactical interplay is almost as much fun as watching a Taylor Jones block. You make a very good point. However, what the 5 foul rule also does is benefit the "fat cats" (U-Conn, Louisville, Oregon(as long as Phil Knight is around),etc.). Those teams are able to collect the most talented rosters and thus have more high quality players than the others of the women's college basketball world (OSU and just about everybody else).
In other words, the "fat cats" can afford to lose more players who foul out, than the rest of us.
Prior to injuries/undisclosed illnesses, we were a "fat cat" with respect to bigs, but lost 4 of them. |
|
