Quote:
Originally posted by RookieDude
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
If there was so little contact that the player being fouled may not have even known it, I think you can consider it sufficient to give the intentional
|
Coach, If I'm giving out the $1000 prize for best response...I'm gonna have to ask you to take out the above statement.
While most of what you stated is right on, IMO, whether or not a player "knows" he/she was almost hit with a "swing", by an opponent, should have no consequences in the officials call.
i.e. A1 takes a sissy swing at B1 from behind...B1 felt the "breeze" but nothing else....whatta ya got?
|
I may have an intentional if it is a "sissy swing" - not sure what that really is though, so I don't really know for sure what I have! If it is what I envision, then I wouldn't be certain that it is intended to injure or hurt the opponent, I am sure it isn't enough to accomplish that goal if that was the goal, and I am sure it was intended. This is how I come up with an intentional in this situation - we have enough to see that something was intended, not sure what it was. So split the difference.
Obviously others disagree, but we have what is characterized as not only poorly aimed, but lame. So it has intent, but intent for what is the key question. Rainmaker had a common foul, it seems that it wasn't a dead-on obvious intentional. Upon further review she thinks intentional, and she gets hit with multiple calls for the flagrant. I go with her instinct - she was there.