ADVERTISEMENT

Pope: "I don't want to foul my own guys out."

gbl97

Junior
Mar 12, 2002
2,409
2,893
113
"One of the things that every coach struggles with is you never want to foul your own guy out. And I probably did that a little bit with Andrew tonight. Probably needed to play him with two fouls in the first half. I probably could have done a little bit more with Lamont. Late in the first half, I made what turned out to be a very poor miscalculation. We had gone on a little run and so I went small thinking that I could save (Carr) and save Ansley (Almonor) a second, and that went really bad. In hindsight, maybe I roll the dice and play those guys a little bit more in the first half. That'll be something we'll argue about and have no answer for. Philosophically, I don't want to foul my own guys out."

Credit to Coach Pope for recognizing sometimes you need to play your guys even when they're in foul trouble. I can't count how many times Cal "fouled his own guy out" in the first half and we never recovered.

Also, his humility to own his mistakes and learn from them is refreshing.

Post game press conference (247 Sports)
 
The problem is, whatever we think about risking playing a guy with 2 fouls.. it all goes out the door with college basketball officiating. I can't say it is ever a truly WRONG decision to hold a UK guy out with 2 fouls, because if you continue to play him, he will foul out. 100%.

So, Pope held him out, and honestly we kind of held it together without him (well enough at least). Then you put Butler back in, fresh legs, offense looks better... and he fouls quickly for his 3rd, so we take him out... then we do it all over again and he fouls quickly, again, this time for his 4th.

The writing was on the wall, and maybe part of it was just a bad game for Butler. But it was clear that we weren't going to be allowed to play our entire team the way we want.. What can you do?
 
Coaches think they can't win with their best players on the bench so they, if they think the player might foul out in the future, come to the solution of...putting the player on the bench. Have I got that right?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: ukwazoo and gbl97
I have always stated that more important than having your best players available at the end of the game (which you do want) is to want to maximize your minutes for your best players. Well maximize them playing at their best level. So, you do bench them to give them a rest, or even if you think they are holding-back as to not commit a foul. But if they can play with the same effort and energy, then play them.
 
Not sure ... but which is worse:
1) Having Kriisa playing more minutes at the point during the game, because you're worried that Butler might foul out ??
2) Having Kriisa playing at the end of the game, because Butler has fouled out ??
I certainly do not know the answer ... I'll hang up and listen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ala_kat2
Not sure ... but which is worse:
1) Having Kriisa playing more minutes at the point during the game, because you're worried that Butler might foul out ??
2) Having Kriisa playing at the end of the game, because Butler has fouled out ??
I certainly do not know the answer ... I'll hang up and listen.
The first one- as you got to be IN the game for it to matter.
 
I can't say it is ever a truly WRONG decision to hold a UK guy out with 2 fouls, because if you continue to play him, he will foul out. 100%.
Players with 2 fouls in the first half often don't foul out. Sometimes they even end the game with only 2 fouls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dl51344
Refs and three point shooting was my biggest fear. The refs got Butler and Oweh on two early ones and then a third not long after that. Clemson was ultra physical and was allowed to play that way. Another bad night shooting also. Did not expect Carr to lay an egg but he also had a couple of early fouls that probably bothered him playing his game. How could we get Ayers of all people? Our guys will see that a lot of SEC games on the road. If you can't overcome the refs you won't win a title. I was just bothered with them getting to play more physical than us, something a box score will not show. So many top shooters and old guys, the shooting will now concern me every game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuppnRoll
Players with 2 fouls in the first half often don't foul out. Sometimes they even end the game with only 2 fouls.

But who knows in all those cases, how long those players with 2 fouls stayed in the game. Looking at it another way, of all the players that DO foul out, what percentage have 2 fouls in the 1st half? 75% 80%? more?

It does seem to be that standard convention dictates that if you have 2 fouls in the 2nd, you'e probably getting pulled for a bit. Your 3rd early in the 2nd half? 4th with 10 min to go? same thing.
 
"One of the things that every coach struggles with is you never want to foul your own guy out. And I probably did that a little bit with Andrew tonight. Probably needed to play him with two fouls in the first half. I probably could have done a little bit more with Lamont. Late in the first half, I made what turned out to be a very poor miscalculation. We had gone on a little run and so I went small thinking that I could save (Carr) and save Ansley (Almonor) a second, and that went really bad. In hindsight, maybe I roll the dice and play those guys a little bit more in the first half. That'll be something we'll argue about and have no answer for. Philosophically, I don't want to foul my own guys out."

Credit to Coach Pope for recognizing sometimes you need to play your guys even when they're in foul trouble. I can't count how many times Cal "fouled his own guy out" in the first half and we never recovered.

Also, his humility to own his mistakes and learn from them is refreshing.

Post game press conference (247 Sports)
FINALLY!!!!!!! A COACH IS STARTING TO GET IT!!!!
As many know I've been preaching forever as loud as I can against this insane idea that guy are "in foul trouble" and therefore needing to sit down. My family has has to endure my diatribe every game about it. Whoever started it, it is the single dumbest thing in sport!

The idea that I'm going to take a guy out of the game so he CANT PLAY in order to keep him from possibly, maybe later on have to come out of the game where he has to come out and CANT PLAY just makes no logical sense. Coach is right, when you do that you have IN FACT fouled your buy out of the game. The end result is the same, your guy is not on the floor and cant contribute

The worse part is by starting this on the second foul, they put in their guys head that he is indeed in foul trouble and he knows he has to be careful from that time on which sucks the energy right out of them. THey know that now that they've been tagged with the label of foul trouble at foul #2, they'll probably have to sit again at #3, then #4.

If left in to play through all of this there is a good change they never would have ever fouled out and you maintain the upside. But when you start taking them out at 2 fouls and so on YOU GUARANTEE they suffer the punishement of fouling out to some degreee.

I'm out, where's the Tylenol!!
 
I think if a player gets 2 fouls in the first half with say 10 minutes left. You sit him down for a few minutes. Let him get rested but you bring him back in.
Now obviously if he gets a 3rd you sit him immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: augustaky1
FINALLY!!!!!!! A COACH IS STARTING TO GET IT!!!!
As many know I've been preaching forever as loud as I can against this insane idea that guy are "in foul trouble" and therefore needing to sit down. My family has has to endure my diatribe every game about it. Whoever started it, it is the single dumbest thing in sport!

The idea that I'm going to take a guy out of the game so he CANT PLAY in order to keep him from possibly, maybe later on have to come out of the game where he has to come out and CANT PLAY just makes no logical sense. Coach is right, when you do that you have IN FACT fouled your buy out of the game. The end result is the same, your guy is not on the floor and cant contribute

The worse part is by starting this on the second foul, they put in their guys head that he is indeed in foul trouble and he knows he has to be careful from that time on which sucks the energy right out of them. THey know that now that they've been tagged with the label of foul trouble at foul #2, they'll probably have to sit again at #3, then #4.

If left in to play through all of this there is a good change they never would have ever fouled out and you maintain the upside. But when you start taking them out at 2 fouls and so on YOU GUARANTEE they suffer the punishement of fouling out to some degreee.


I'm out, where's the Tylenol!!
This is what I was getting at in my post just above yours but I didn't have the energy to put it in such detail. GREAT post.
 
Coaches think they can't win with their best players on the bench so they, if they think the player might foul out in the future, come to the solution of...putting the player on the bench. Have I got that right?
Tubby did that with Chuck Hayes in the 2nd overtime against Michigan State and it cost us the game. I was screaming at the TV "WHAT ARE YOU SAVING HIM FOR??"
 
But who knows in all those cases, how long those players with 2 fouls stayed in the game. Looking at it another way, of all the players that DO foul out, what percentage have 2 fouls in the 1st half? 75% 80%? more?

It does seem to be that standard convention dictates that if you have 2 fouls in the 2nd, you'e probably getting pulled for a bit. Your 3rd early in the 2nd half? 4th with 10 min to go? same thing.
Even if they don't foul out, they play less aggressively. That game was totally changed when 2 starters got 2 fouls in the 2nd half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LineSkiCat14
Just think about the repercussions of Lamont getting his 3rd foul in the first half. That would be devastating.

Lamont was careless, I know it's his nature to play aggressive, but on the road, in a physical game, you can't reach and you can't gamble as much. He should know better.

Plus, there are guards at this level that are very good at baiting you and making you foul.

Lamont, Oweh and Carr need to realize they are too important to be getting into foul trouble.

The fact that Lamont immediately picked up his 3rd foul early in the 2nd half, tells me the right decision was to bench him in the first half. His DNA is aggressive defense, if he can't do that, he's just going to be letting guys score.

I agree with the 2 foul rule, getting 3 fouls in the first half is a big problem you don't want with your best guy. No thanks.

I'm surprised there are so many mistakes, missed free throws and lack of effort plays given we have so many seniors and super seniors. We beat ourselves Tuesday night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThroughBlue
Pretty simple, if a guy picks up his 3rd foul in the first half, he now has to play most of the second half with the mindset that he can't touch anyone, especially on the road. We got called for every touch foul and Pope knows Lamont is an aggressive defender.

In that situation, you sit Lamont, maybe play him a few possessions after some rest, but you absolutely cannot allow him to pick up a 3rd foul in the first half. You just screwed yourself if he does.

In my mind, your best players have to make it to at least the 10 minute mark of the 2nd half before getting a 3rd foul, especially in a game where the refs are calling every touch foul (unless you're Clemson's best rebounder).

But in my mind, it worked fine, we had the lead multiple times in the 2nd half, we blew it, because we didn't rebound, make free throws or make open shots.
 
Damn, that's refreshing isn't it?

Don't know the last time I heard a UK coach say they did something wrong. Seriously.

Eh, Cal would say it, but it was more on the "YOU think what I just said is right, so I'll say it just to sound like I'm taking accountability."

With Pope, it's not lip service (as far as we know....still new to us!) I'm not a Pope whisperer yet, and hopefully won't have to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digger-Cat
Eh, Cal would say it, but it was more on the "YOU think what I just said is right, so I'll say it just to sound like I'm taking accountability."

With Pope, it's not lip service (as far as we know....still new to us!) I'm not a Pope whisperer yet, and hopefully won't have to be.
Yup, Cal said it because he just wanted everyone to shut up and move on, he really didn't believe it and it was always so obvious too.
Half the time, nobody even asked whos fault it was, he just assumed everyone would.
Pay me 9 million a year and I think I would be a bit more kind to the ones that make it so I can get that kind of coin.
 
Yup, Cal said it because he just wanted everyone to shut up and move on, he really didn't believe it and it was always so obvious too.
Half the time, nobody even asked whos fault it was, he just assumed everyone would.
Pay me 9 million a year and I think I would be a bit more kind to the ones that make it so I can get that kind of coin.
Now the problem is occurring on the football side. I caught a TON of flak for saying it, but it's proving true. Cal and Stoops are the same damn person.
 
Pretty simple, if a guy picks up his 3rd foul in the first half, he now has to play most of the second half with the mindset that he can't touch anyone, especially on the road. We got called for every touch foul and Pope knows Lamont is an aggressive defender.

In that situation, you sit Lamont, maybe play him a few possessions after some rest, but you absolutely cannot allow him to pick up a 3rd foul in the first half. You just screwed yourself if he does.

In my mind, your best players have to make it to at least the 10 minute mark of the 2nd half before getting a 3rd foul, especially in a game where the refs are calling every touch foul (unless you're Clemson's best rebounder).

But in my mind, it worked fine, we had the lead multiple times in the 2nd half, we blew it, because we didn't rebound, make free throws or make open shots.
In my mind that is why is so important in these early games for our three freshman to play early and often. They don’t have to score but just play defense. If they get beat give up hard fouls and I mean hard. Toughness is very important since refs tend to call fouls on young players. Hand check and fight through screens is the way. Make them beat you at the foul line and take away the layup drill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digger-Cat
In my mind that is why is so important in these early games for our three freshman to play early and often. They don’t have to score but just play defense. If they get beat give up hard fouls and I mean hard. Toughness is very important since refs tend to call fouls on young players. Hand check and fight through screens is the way. Make them beat you at the foul line and take away the layup drill.
Yeah, I agree, but with this only being the 8th game, I don't think any of the freshmen would have been ready to go no matter what. This is one where the rotation uad to be 8 or 9 guys max and hope they get the job done.
Since the last regime was all about shuffling players in and out and making sure player retention didn't happen, this rebuild job was always going to be a long process.
Cal, the gift that keeps on giving.
 
"One of the things that every coach struggles with is you never want to foul your own guy out. And I probably did that a little bit with Andrew tonight. Probably needed to play him with two fouls in the first half. I probably could have done a little bit more with Lamont. Late in the first half, I made what turned out to be a very poor miscalculation. We had gone on a little run and so I went small thinking that I could save (Carr) and save Ansley (Almonor) a second, and that went really bad. In hindsight, maybe I roll the dice and play those guys a little bit more in the first half. That'll be something we'll argue about and have no answer for. Philosophically, I don't want to foul my own guys out."

Credit to Coach Pope for recognizing sometimes you need to play your guys even when they're in foul trouble. I can't count how many times Cal "fouled his own guy out" in the first half and we never recovered.

Also, his humility to own his mistakes and learn from them is refreshing.

Post game press conference (247 Sports)
I caught that too. He is honest enough to admit things. Butler not being out there really hurt.
 
I caught that too. He is honest enough to admit things. Butler not being out there really hurt.
It hurt running the offense, and rest of the guys are just not quick enough to get by their man to create open shots. We don’t run crisp cuts right now, I expect to see a different team Saturday. I expect to see some shots fall, we are too good of a team to continue to shoot like 💩
 
". . . . In hindsight, maybe I roll the dice and play those guys a little bit more in the first half. . . . ."
Credit to Coach Pope for recognizing sometimes you need to play your guys even when they're in foul trouble.
I can't count how many times Cal "fouled his own guy out" in the first half and we never recovered.
Also, [Pope's] humility to own his mistakes and learn from them is refreshing.

Post game press conference (247 Sports)
This ! ! ! This ! ! ! This ! ! ! This ! ! !
 
Last edited:
The best way for this to work itself out is for Butler to stop getting a foul early in about every game for reaching in. His first foul of about every game is a reach in across the body. Just no need in that type of foul especially early.
 
Personally, if I were a coach, I would change the rule from benching from 2 fouls to 3 fouls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gbl97
Personally, if I were a coach, I would change the rule from benching from 2 fouls to 3 fouls.
The “rule” needs to depend on the player.

A foul prone big with 2 fouls 10 minutes in the game is different than a guard that rarely fouls.

If a player averages like 2 fouls a game but just happened to get two in the first, the chances of him fouling out is low based on his natural rate. I de facto foul him out if he ends up with 3 total fouls and 10 less minutes played than normal.
 
Coaches think they can't win with their best players on the bench so they, if they think the player might foul out in the future, come to the solution of...putting the player on the bench. Have I got that right?
I have never understood the logic. I'd only do it if I had a lead and it wasn't a nail-biter.
 
Not sure ... but which is worse:
1) Having Kriisa playing more minutes at the point during the game, because you're worried that Butler might foul out ??
2) Having Kriisa playing at the end of the game, because Butler has fouled out ??
I certainly do not know the answer ... I'll hang up and listen.
They are both bad outcomes. But I'd rather have my best players on the court for the most minutes.
 
I don't like any firm rule on this because the context always matters but unlike many, I lean toward protecting the player from picking up too many fouls too quickly especially the more key they are and am more inclined to have a fit because Butler is rendered ineffective on D and timid attacking the basket because he was allowed to rack up four fouls with 10 or 15 minutes left in the game.

It is always a balancing act but if we are up or close, the next man up needs to hold the line a few.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT