One basketball term which the television and radio announcers have been using more over the past several years is "fouls to give." I don't remember that term being used much, if at all, until about two or three years ago. What does it mean, and why is it important?
In men's college basketball, a non-shooting foul (sometimes referred to as a "common foul") does not result in a free throw until the offending team has committed its seventh foul of the half. At that time, the opponent is in the "bonus" and is therefore entitled to a "one-and-one," i.e., a free throw which, if successful, is followed by a second free throw. Once a team commits its tenth foul of the half, the opponent is in the "double bonus" and is therefore entitled to shoot two free throws even if the first attempt is unsuccessful.
When a team has "fouls to give" that means it has not yet reached its sixth team foul of the half, so the commission of its next foul will not put their opponent in the bonus. Thus the next common foul will not result in the opponent getting any free throw. The opponent will merely get to inbound the ball. With that in mind, sometimes teams with a foul to give will intentionally foul a player on the other team toward the end of a close game.
Consider this scenario. Minnesota leads Iowa by three points with ten seconds to go in the game. Iowa inbounds the ball at the opposite end of the court (ninety-four feet away) from its offensive basket, and Minnesota has fouls to give. The Minnesota coaches have a choice to make. Do we simply play tough defense for ten seconds, or do we intentionally foul an Iowa player when the clock has dwindled down to about four or five seconds? Because Minnesota has fouls to give, if Minnesota executes the latter strategy, Iowa will not go to the free throw line. Iowa will have to inbound the ball with only four or five seconds left.
There are two schools of thought on the wisdom of employing the end-game strategy of intentionally fouling an opponent when your team has fouls to give. Here are the most important pros and cons.
The Pros:
1. Generally, fouling the opponent disrupts the opponent's rhythm. It is not unlike a track sprint race with a false start. Now the athletes have to start all over again, only in a basketball game there is now less time available for a team to do what it had originally planned.
2. The strategy works best if the opponent does not have any time out remaining. The opponent's coach probably spent his last time out designing a play to run for the situation which presented itself at the ten second mark. That plan at least partially, if not completely, goes out the window after the intentional foul.
3. Following along the same lines as # 2, it stands to reason that the more time which elapses between the coach's instruction and the moment of execution, the less likely successful execution will be. This is particularly true if the team with the ball is young, inexperienced and on the road with thousands of fans screaming. In our hypothetical, if Iowa is playing several underclassmen in The Barn, their chances of tying the game are decreased by Minnesota's intentional foul.
4. The opponent is forced to inbound the ball, not always an easy task. Minnesota will probably have its tallest player, with a wing span resembling that of a Boeing 747, jumping and waving his arms in front of the inbounds passer. Minnesota will want to force Iowa to inbound the ball to a Hawkeye running away from his basket. That will eat up a few more precious seconds.
5. Even if Iowa completes the inbounds pass, with fewer ticks left on the clock, Iowa will be limited as to how many dribbles and passes it can make before its final shot.
6. If Minnesota still has yet another foul to give, it might even do so again after the inbounds pass has been completed.
The Cons:
If intentionally fouling when you have fouls to give is such a brilliant end-game idea, why don't teams do it all the time? Here are some reasons why, and they are all deal breakers.
1. Minnesota must not be called for an intentional foul, even though they are intentionally fouling! In other words, the Gopher committing the foul has to be somewhat of a good actor. He can't just hack at the Iowa player he wants to foul. If the referee rules that the foul was intentional, Iowa will shoot free throws and then retain possession of the ball. A good rule of thumb for making an intentional foul look unintentional is this: Swipe up at the ball, not down. If you swipe up, you will not be called for a hack.
2. Equally as dangerous as # 1 is the possibility of fouling a player in the act of shooting. If the Gopher player is just a few tenths of a second too late with his intentional foul, the Iowa player could launch a shot in the process. If the referee deems the foul was a "shooting foul" (not a common foul), Iowa will shoot one free throw if the shot goes in, or two free throws if the shot misses. Either way, bad news for the Gophers.
3. The Minnesota coach should be able to trust a bench player to commit the intentional foul. You want to avoid having to use a starter, especially one who already has three or four personal fouls, to be the one who commits the foul, because if by some miracle Iowa sends the game into overtime, you want your starter available for the OT. The problem for Minnesota is that the bench player may not be accustomed to being used in crunch time, and now you are asking him to perform a key role in your strategy.
4. This might be the biggest warning of all, and it is one emphasized by basketball analyst/guru Fran Fraschilla many times. A coach whose team has a foul to give should not ask his players to do so unless his team has repeatedly practiced that end-game scenario throughout the season. The art of intentionally fouling an opposing player in the heat of battle requires (as noted above) perfect timing and a bit of acting. This is not something you whip up on a clip board during a thirty second time out. Using a "foul to give" has to be part of a team's regular arsenal. If it's not, just play tough D and forget about giving the foul.
