Ugly display...

[Andrew]

Enjoyable as it was to watch Andrew Bogut, Michael Redd's 41 point performance and the first game shown on ESPN Australia for the 2005/2006 season, something spoiled that experience. It's a problem that's existed for a while and one that really doesn't do much for the sport. That would be the fouling frenzy at the end of the Bucks/Nets game.

I know, fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock has a purpose. It can be an effective strategy in the closing minute of a close game. But when the game has clearly been decided by a double digit deficit and there's around a minute left, it borders on poor sportsmanship, I feel, to foul the way New Jersey did. As Mark Jackson said, you have to admire Lawrence Frank's dedication and will to go down fighting but at the same time you have to know when to quit.

Intentional fouls and timeouts when you're down by 12 with 50 seconds left is just ugly. A regulation basketball game is 48 minutes in length, with stoppage for fouls and other infractions. The fourth quarter of that game took almost 40 minutes to play, the last two minutes or so took up around 10 minutes. Basketball is meant to be one of the fastest ball sports. Play like that doesn't support that theory.

I may be alone on this one, but after watching the end of that game I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth assessing techs when teams use that strategy when the game's already in the bag. I think something needs to be done to discourage it, because it's not only painful to watch but it borders on poor sportsmanship.

After all, no one likes to lose, but when it's obvious a loss it at hand and especially in a game like this where you have 81 games to turn around a losing record of 0-1, I think turning the last minute into a five minute free throw shootout isn't in the spirit of the game. There isn't really any strategy at work and the slim chance of success isn't really worth it.

Perhaps I'm making too big a deal out of it, but it isn't the first time it's happened and I just felt it wasn't in the spirit of the game and competition. You have to admire the "never say die" attitude, but there's a point where it becomes too much in my opinion.

[The X]

I agree....I've never liked that aspect of the game....I'd like to see competitive teams pressing hard rather than just going for the foul....in the case of the Bucks-Nets game they should have just played it out....

[Laxation]

god it was boring.

the last 5minutes took at LEAST 20minutes, what with the fight, and then of course the fouls...
i ended up watching 24!!! ee gad!

[Null17]

Yeah it gets annoying. Even when playing a video game. I don't even like using that strategy on NBA Live. Although, it might be because the opposing team always sinks the free throws all the time

[alexboom]

I may be alone on this one, but after watching the end of that game I'm starting to wonder whether it's worth assessing techs when teams use that strategy when the game's already in the bag.

I was backing that idea before as it really spoils the pleasure of watching a game but I'm no longer that sure: how would you define a game "already in the bag"?

[Cloudy]

Tracy McGrady is probably the one who made them do that.
If T-Mac can do it, why can't we?

[air gordon]

as a fan, it sucks to watch but you gotta grin and bear it. the coach shouldn't have to worry about pleasing the fans.

basketaball is fast paced but seldom in the 4th qtr in a close game...

i praise coach frank for this. it's the 1st game of the season and you can't be mailing it in already. he's trying to win the game, regardless of the score. none of the historic comebacks ever happen with that quitting attitude.

[John WB]

I missed the game. YES really should replay Nets games.

[cyanide]

I disagree. As ugly as it might be for the fans, it's still basketball, and competition is involved here. 12 points with 50 seconds to go, it's still possible to score 12 points in 50 seconds, but unlikely. Even though this is the first game of the season, this will spark a no–nonsense attitude in the mindset of the Nets that they're not there to give up, but to play hard to win. I'm sure Jason Kidd is fully supportive of clawing into the last dying minutes just to win the game, that's the kind of attitude that makes a good team. As for the fans, well, they can assume who won the game and walk right out of that building.

[Jona]

There were 4 minutes in the 4th quarter, and I fell asleep... luckily it seems...

[Matt]

well look @ what T-Mac did, and he did that with the help of his team fouling in the last minute.

and what if LeBron busted 4 treys in the last minute?

i know it gets ugly but you gotta put up with it.

[Eugene]

The thing is, when you start assessing tech for when a game is seemingly out of reach, the pure competitive aspect of the game is taken away because of the addition of subjectivity.

Let's say you are the Hawks, and up 10 points with 1:30 left. You're playing the Spurs. Because of the inexperience of the team, and the lack of talent, it is entirely likely that the Spurs might catch up in the last 90 seconds.

On the other hand, you would never expect the Hawks to close a ten point gap on the Spurs in the last 5:00 minutes, let alone the last minute and a half.

So, that means there is something qualitatively different about a ten point lead the Spurs might have on the Hawks as opposed to a ten point lead the Hawks might have on the Spurs.

But that's the thing about basketball, 2 points (theoretically) is 2 points regardless of what team you are. And based on that principle, if you were to implement the "tech" rule, then you would have to do so for all the teams.

Then you have this problem: if you say you can't extend the game by fouling, then you're saying at certain point, the game is over. Which might be true, then why even go through the rest of that quarter? At what point is the game truly out of reach, and when can you finally call the game? A 10-point lead with a minute left? A 10 point lead with 30 seconds left? How about a 27 point lead going into the fourth quarter? How about up by one with .4 seconds left?

When is the game over?

Of course, these are all examples in which the losing team made the big comeback, which tells us, in basketball, anything can happen.

Sure, the game might, in reality, be out of reach if the team's up 20 with 2-minutes left, but theoretically, if you can make up 10 points in a minute (if you can make up 2 points for every 4-tenths of a second, at that), then suddenly, the 20 point lead doesn't seem that big. In a real game, though, I've never seen the fouling tactic used in that situation.

I agree that the game extending tactic can be an excruciating experience, but as of right now, I don't think it's really out of hand, and most coaches know when a game is over and start preparing for the next game by resting the starters. I just see the potential problems with implementing the "tech" rule far outweighing whatever benefits it may bring.

[Nel]

I disagree too. I truly believe to never give up until the final buzzer sounds.

[Matthew]

Eugene, theres a fine line of within the spirit of the game and doing anything to win. Thats why Larry Brown told his team not to foul in game 2 of the 2004 finals, to play it straight up. I respect that.

But I also respect Frank for not giving in. 12 points with 50 seconds to go isnt out of the question, especially when the nets were going to the line nearly as frequently as the Bucks.

[Andrew]

Good points. Like I said, I can admire the competitive nature but I really feel it's not in the spirit of the game. All the Nets were doing ultimately was allowing the Bucks to extend the deficit, aside from stopping the clock they weren't doing anything effective in giving themselves a chance for a miraculous comeback.

And again, it was the first game of the season. Sure, no one wants to start off the new year with a loss and set a trend that might continue through the first couple of weeks, but you have 81 games to turn an 0-1 record at the beginning of the year around. Yes, the fact they will fight just as hard in such a game is admirable, but they weren't really getting any closer to the Bucks yet they kept going to that strategy.

Tracy McGrady demonstrated last season that it's possible to make up a double digit advantage in less than a minute, but it's important to remember that what he did was an exception, not the rule. You don't see that very often.

But your point about determining when a game is truly over is well-taken. But I think some leads in the closing minutes are all but guaranteed to be insurmountable. For example, a 25 point lead with 40 seconds left. I think the team that's trailing should just play that out, since time just isn't on their side. It would take the unlikeliest of miracles to pull that off and in a regular season game that probably won't ultimately affect their final record too much, so fouling would simply be delaying the inevitable. But I must admit, assessing techs would be subjective so the calls would be varying from referee to referee.

That said, I still feel there's also a fine line between being admirably competitive and being a sore loser. The lead was only growing as the game was reaching the 40 second mark and the Nets were still fouling. I think that borders on bad sportsmanship as much as it shows heart, desire and competitive spirit, because it's also a tactic that isn't really in the spirit of the game. But I'll admit, I probably did jump the gun on the techs idea. I suppose it's something we'll just have to live with, but I think it's a poor showing. I suppose it's better than the teams that call timeout when they're down by five or six with around 2 seconds left.

[Eugene]

Matt, it's the NBA Finals, you have a chance to go up 2-0 coming home, and you're up three, and they inbound to Shaq? That has nothing to do with sportsmanship and playing things out. You foul in that situation. Larry Brown made a mistake. If you're not taking every advantage to win the game, then why bother playing?

And Andrew, I do agree that some leads are, in fact, insurmountable in any practical sense. Suffice it to say, I haven't seen anyone go to the fouling tactic when they're on the losing end of a 25 point lead with 2 minutes left (at that point, getting the starters to rest, playing the young guys, avoiding injury all outweigh the potential benefit of winning one game).

To be honest, I don't really like dragging out games anymore than it has to. But knowing something incredible could happen at any moment--well, that's why we watch sports, isn't it?

[Matthew]

I dont agree. I can see why people do it, but you dont rob the game. If Brown did employ hack a shaq or even just intentionally foul the lakers, the basketball world would have never seen that spectacular 3 by Kobe.

It also shows how much Larry Brown not only loves the game, but he practices what he preaches. A respect for the game. I cant criticise him for that.

[Laxation]

no, it shows larry brown is a hack...

nba's best coach my ring

[Eugene]

I'm almost certain Larry Brown did not have Kobe's game-tying three in mind when he told his players to not foul.

I know in retrospect it was a great basketball moment, but when you're coaching, your first job should be to win the game. And while there may be honor in playing straight up, why not take advantage when the opportunity presents itself?

This discussion goes, I think, to the essence of why we play the game. Do we play to win? Or, do we instead play for the ideal, artistic aspect of the game. And personally, my view is that the game of basketball, as James Naismith created, is a competitive sport in which the first and ultimate goal is to win. The artistic moments, the trancendent moments, arise precisely from that struggle when both sides gives (and takes) everything they can, as Kobe did when he took that three to tie, but when either side gives anything less, I feel like the resulting moment is tainted.

[maes]

Part of the problem is that it's increasingly common for starters to have horrible free throwing %. I remember when Shaq entered the league everyone talked about his 50/50 free throw shooting. Now, nobody even blinks an eye at even a scrub who shoots 50%.

That, combined with the increasingly accurate 3 point shooting, makes the fouling strategy actually more viable, and yeah Tracy's performance last year in 45 seconds is going to make it even more fashionable.

I'm not sure what kind of rule you could possibly implement that would end most games but still allow for the "McGrady Possibility".

[Andrew]

And Andrew, I do agree that some leads are, in fact, insurmountable in any practical sense. Suffice it to say, I haven't seen anyone go to the fouling tactic when they're on the losing end of a 25 point lead with 2 minutes left (at that point, getting the starters to rest, playing the young guys, avoiding injury all outweigh the potential benefit of winning one game).

To be honest, I don't really like dragging out games anymore than it has to. But knowing something incredible could happen at any moment--well, that's why we watch sports, isn't it?

Granted, it's not that common, though the Bucks/Nets game was kind of heading towards that territory. And you're right, the impossible is always incredible to watch, but it was pretty obvious it wasn't going to happen. The Bucks kept padding their stats and the lead stayed intact. When it got to 40 seconds and it was still going on, I thought it was a bit much.

This discussion goes, I think, to the essence of why we play the game. Do we play to win? Or, do we instead play for the ideal, artistic aspect of the game. And personally, my view is that the game of basketball, as James Naismith created, is a competitive sport in which the first and ultimate goal is to win. The artistic moments, the trancendent moments, arise precisely from that struggle when both sides gives (and takes) everything they can, as Kobe did when he took that three to tie, but when either side gives anything less, I feel like the resulting moment is tainted.

Certainly the object is to win. But when it comes to sports, there are also ideals and certain rules of competition that apply to all sports - the whole idea of "sportsmanship". You play to win but there's winning by any means necessary and then there's winning by absolutely any means necessary. Most people admire the athlete that possesses an incredible competitive drive but also respect for the game and its rules; the player or team that is very good at their sport and can win fairly simply because they are that good at what they do.

Conversely, we tend to scorn the player or team that frequently resorts to dirty tactics, no matter how talented they may be, because their victories come as a result of strategies that bend the rules of the sport and aren't sportsmanlike; players/teams who intentionally injure their opponents or employ other cheap/dishonest methods that they can creatively get away with.

I know the Nets weren't trying to do that, but the point I'm trying to make is that while competition is an important part of sports, so is the concept of goodwill and sportsmanship. The Bucks/Nets game may not have been an example of horrible sportsmanship because they were admittedly employing a strategy that can be considered respectable gamesmanship, but I feel in that particular instance the use of that technique quickly become a tactic that tight-roped the line of sportsmanship because the Nets weren't really making a concerted effort to win aside from fouling. Really, all they were doing was making the Bucks' win a chore. Fouling was doing them no favours, yet they kept doing it.