Guarding the inbounder

[SoBeCuse]

You want players not following coaching instructions on purpose?

Yes. In this situation. Hence, a mutiny.

 

[Cuseball]

Don’t like this strategy at all. These guys receive the pass undeterred with momentum going forward always it seems before these launches. Many have been SO close. I hate it.

Maybe but seton hall covered the inbound and gave up an even more open shot.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

In the NBA, Georgetown would have been able to pass in from half court after that time out.

 

[longtimefan]

Yes. In this situation. Hence, a mutiny.

Sounds like Paul Harris.

 

[SBU72]

On late-game full court plays with a few seconds left, I'm a huge advocate of guarding the inbounder. I would have put Bourama's massive wingspan on the inbounder and just told him to do jumping jacks. I feel like that makes an accurate entry pass extremely difficult, and its almost a favor to the offense to let them make an unguarded pass. Curious what others think.

I'm thrilled we won, but that shot was probably a couple centimeters from being the biggest sports story of the day.

Passing to another player standing out of bounds eliminates the big man completely from the play.

 

[jordoo]

Yes. In this situation. Hence, a mutiny.

That is how you earn a seat on the bench and in some situations an early exit from the program. The coaching staff is not the enemy weather one (fan or player) agrees or disagrees with philosophy and or system. Coaches want to win, players want to win and fans want to win. What you are suggesting is the divisiveness that destroys programs IMO.

 

[PASyrFan]

On late-game full court plays with a few seconds left, I'm a huge advocate of guarding the inbounder. I would have put Bourama's massive wingspan on the inbounder and just told him to do jumping jacks. I feel like that makes an accurate entry pass extremely difficult, and its almost a favor to the offense to let them make an unguarded pass. Curious what others think.

I'm thrilled we won, but that shot was probably a couple centimeters from being the biggest sports story of the day.

I agree 1000%. I coached youth/HS BB for over 20 years. I got burned earlier in my coaching career by not guarding the inbounder & it never happened again. After that, I put a large, very active player on the inbounder & yes, you coach them to not reach forward. It makes it very difficult to complete an accurate pass. This isn't rocket science. WTH is Boeheim thinking?????? I stand up for that guy over and over again, and yet, sometimes I can only scratch my head.

 

[Hoo's That]

I think the ability to run baseline, since we had just scored, had to be why we didn’t. That makes guarding the inbounder far less valuable. Also sets up the chance for them to put a player in the way of our defender who chases the inbounder, trying to draw a foul as our guy runs into him.

Have to agree here. If it's a spot throw-in, then cover the guy with one of your tallest players, otherwise drop back.

In the NBA, Georgetown would have been able to pass in from half court after that time out.

This has to be one of the stupidest ideas in basketball. College WBball does this, too. I can understand with the NBA because they want offense and other than one-on-one defense is optional, but it's a terrible idea for college ball to emulate.

 

[SoBeCuse]

That is how you earn a seat on the bench and in some situations an early exit from the program. The coaching staff is not the enemy weather one (fan or player) agrees or disagrees with philosophy and or system. Coaches want to win, players want to win and fans want to win. What you are suggesting is the divisiveness that destroys programs IMO.

It was sarcasm, man. Chill. My goodness.

 

[OrangeDW]

Have to agree here. If it's a spot throw-in, then cover the guy with one of your tallest players, otherwise drop back.


This has to be one of the stupidest ideas in basketball. College WBball does this, too. I can understand with the NBA because they want offense and other than one-on-one defense is optional, but it's a terrible idea for college ball to emulate.

Agreed. If you want to run a play from the sideline at halfcourt, you should have to outlet the ball there and take a timeout.

That’s one thing men’s college b-ball has correct.

 

[MSOrange]

Agreed. If you want to run a play from the sideline at halfcourt, you should have to outlet the ball there and take a timeout.

That’s one thing men’s college b-ball has correct.

Agree - I never understood in the NBA how calling a timeout meant you could advance the ball.

 

[cayugacuse]

With about 2.5 seconds left and the length of the court to go, I can see the reasoning. We have 5 guys to cover 4. We keep 3 guys stretched around the basket and 2 guys slacking off around mid court inviting a long pass that is received well before half court. The best shot they are going to get is a hurried 40 footer. This setup defends easier closer shots. I can see the reasoning for a man on the ball as well.

 

[Madbiker]

Not putting a man to harass the inbounder enables an easy line drive pass to mid court. It's just foolish IMO. With under 3 seconds you have to make them inbound in the back court so all they get is a heave.

 

[Col. Bleep]

I think the ability to run baseline, since we had just scored, had to be why we didn’t. That makes guarding the inbounder far less valuable. Also sets up the chance for them to put a player in the way of our defender who chases the inbounder, trying to draw a foul as our guy runs into him.

This is the only plausible reason for not putting a man on the inbounder...to avoid committing some foul.
But that threat is minimized with proper training to beware of hitting someone coming in to set a pick.

Even with that risk it seems to make no sense to give the opponent close to a 100% chance of making the inbounds pass they want to make.

Having 5 guys back instead of 4 doesn't seem to help foil the shot.

 

[sufandu]

Ask Kentucky about guarding the inbounds pass on the final play. I'm sure Grant Hill appreciated getting a clean look at that throw.

 

[hungrychuck]

I think we've established that both approaches have allowed the offense to succeed.

Probably about 2% of the time.

 

[cuseattle]

It was sarcasm, man. Chill. My goodness.

But, you have to admit, it would be great to have a few more posters like Jordoo.
Or maybe he could just post more.

 

[SoBeCuse]

But, you have to admit, it would be great to have a few more posters like Jordoo.
Or maybe he could just post more.

I’ve always noticed them. He’s not one you ignore, generally.

 

[cuseattle]

I’ve always noticed them. He’s not one you ignore, generally.

Knowledgeable. He just doesn't post that much right now.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

that factors into my decision. no timeouts i fall back and defend. 1 timeout left i pressure.

I’d do the opposite

 

[richard levy]

72 Olympic Finals. Tom McMillian guards the inbounds, Tom McMillan doesn't guard the inbounds

 

[Fat tire 13]

Two words - Elmer Bennett

 

[tbonezone]

I’d do the opposite

2.5 seconds and a timeout they are going to inbound and call TO. not going to the basket.

 

[upperdeck]

dont forget kentucky was playing man and doubled the guy who caught it but both played behind him.


bad defense doesnt make it wrong, just bad defense.

had they guarded hill you dont think he pumps once runs around the dude and still lobs it into laettner.

 

[cayugacuse]

This is the only plausible reason for not putting a man on the inbounder...to avoid committing some foul.
But that threat is minimized with proper training to beware of hitting someone coming in to set a pick.

Even with that risk it seems to make no sense to give the opponent close to a 100% chance of making the inbounds pass they want to make.

Having 5 guys back instead of 4 doesn't seem to help foil the shot.

The odds of making a contested half court shot are pretty good in our favor. Makes for a very difficult entry pass over the top imo...the results speak for themselves.