The Indiana Pacers blew a lead against the Boston Celtics in the final seconds of the fourth quarter during Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals, as Jaylen Brown’s game-tying three with 5.7 seconds remaining forced overtime.

The Celtics ultimately won in overtime 133-128.

And LeBron James was wondering why the Pacers—or any other team in a similar situation, for that matter—didn’t simply foul:

He wasn’t alone:

The logic for fouling up three is simple—yes, you potentially give up two free points at the charity stripe, but you keep the trailing team from immediately tying. The leading team then needs to not turn the ball over on any ensuing inbounds plays and hit its free throws, but if it does, the “fouling up three” strategy squeezes the clock until eventually the trailing team doesn’t have enough time to get a good look at a game-tying three.

The argument against fouling up three is risking a shooting foul, potentially giving up a four-point play—or three attempts from the charity stripe, a far easier form of tying the game than a contested three-pointer—in the process.

There’s also the factor of needing to successfully inbound the ball and hit your free throws in the possessions to follow. Some coaches would prefer to play tight defense and force a tough attempt on a contested three instead of extending the game and risking their team making a mistake that would give the trailing team a chance to win on a two.

On Tuesday, however, the Pacers’ misstep certainly offered a strong argument in favor of fouling up three.