Winning free throw


Have I got this right? In the championship game at the end, Roosevelt was ahead by one when Darnellia got the rebound and was fouled. They showed her making the free throw and winning by two. She couldn't have had just one free throw. So I figure she must have missed the first shot, then made the second. But they only showed the one she made, trying to make it look like a great clutch shot.

reply

so...its a movie, it has to be interesting and Darnellia is the hero. If Darnellia, the star senior who the whole movie is about missed a clutch free-throw, it would defeat the purpose of the whole plot.

reply

actually it wasn't a shooting a foul. They were in bonus fouls so the reaching foul on garfield allowed her to shoot 1 shot.

reply

if they were in the bonus they would either have 1 and 1 in which case she would have another shot or double bonus in which case she would have two automatically. They Must have been in double bonus so...the 1st guy was right.

He makes a mockery of the englsh language!

reply

I just finished watching the movie, and unless I'm remembering what I saw/heard incorrectly, Roosevelt was ahead by two when Darnellia was fouled. Then, her free throw gave them an extra point to be ahead by three. I thought I saw the final score being 55-52.

This may not add any clarity to your question about not showing a missed free throw for thematic reasons, but I just thought I'd share it anyway.

reply

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/2001878935_girls14.html

Yes, final score was 55-52.

reply

She made the first, missed the second (off camera).

Making the first free throw did not 'win' the game since they were already ahead, but it meant they could not LOSE it unless Garfield made a miracle fullcourt shot PLUS got fouled.

I suspect if Garfield did not have any time outs left (they had probably burned any they had left trying to 'ice' Russell), Resler may have actually ordered Russell to miss the second free throw.

If she makes both free throws, with 1.9 seconds left, Garfield, down 4, gets to throw the ball the length of the court with the clock still stopped (the clock does not start until it is touched by a player inbounds), there might be a chance they could complete a pass to somebody in position to try a 3-point shot plus get fouled in the process and miraculously send the game to OT. (Think the Christian Laettner shot from 1991.)


If she makes the first and misses the second, Garfield gets the rebound and the clock starts instantly. If they try to pass it upcourt to somebody in the offensive frontcourt, 1.9 seconds run off and the buzzer goes off before the ball even gets there.

The only possible chance Garfield would have in such a situation would be to get the rebound and hurl an 84-foot shot at the basket. The chances of such a heave going in are probably something like .01 of one percent.


Anyway this would have required a long long long strategic explanation which would have brought the movie to a screeching halt, so i am sure the directors said, "she made her last shot, Garfield didn't get another shot off, and they won, that's good enough for us."


Plus to put it brutally as I did in another thread, Resler never gave off the aura of being a real deep thinker in strategy terms so I doubt very much he ordered Russell to miss on purpose, she just missed 'naturally' and Garfield got the rebound and the only shot they got was an 84-foot heave which missed everything by about 30 feet.







================

4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.

reply