- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 1
Editor's Choice: 1
King,
On point #14, I thought I knew where you were going, but you ended up going somewhere else.
Approximately eight seconds after that desperation heave you mention, there was another interesting fouling situation in the Illinois-Washington game. With Washington up 3, and in the double bonus, the announcers mentioned that if Washington could foul Illinois' Dee Brown on the floor, before he was able to take a shot, they'd put him on the line for 2. He'd be in the difficult position of having to miss the second shot on purpose, and hope for an offensive rebound, because there'd be no other way to compensate for the 3 point deficit by shooting 2 at the line.
To me, this doesn't quite seem right. The double bonus situation is supposed to punish Washington for excessive fouling. But in this case, they'd be able to leverage it to their advantage -- if they weren't in the double bonus, the foul would allow Illinois to run a play from out of bounds to get Brown a look at the 3. Washington didn't end up going the fouling route, and let Brown take a 3... which he missed. But they came a lot closer to losing than they would have if they'd fouled. It seems weird to me that a quick foul might have secured their win. Any thoughts? Should a team be allowed to opt-out of shooting free throws in a bonus situation, if they'd prefer the chance to inbound?
