[drinkeii]

I posted a reply to one of the other threads, and the basic point I raised seemed to get passed over on a technicality. I wanted to repost it, because I wanted to get opinions on what I found.

The basic premise was that someone bearhugged a player near the end of the game to stop the clock, and the question was whether or not that was intentional. There was another issue involved with that call, but for this example, I just want the bearhug as the initial and only foul involed.

According to the NFHS rulebook, page 30, "An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is NOT based on the severity of the act." (emphasis added by me)

From the NFHS Simplified and Illustrated (last year's edition), Page 9, "Acts that MUST be deemed intentional may include: 1) grabbing a player from behind; 2) wrapping the arms around a player; 3)grabbing a player away from the ball; 4) grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored;..." (no more relevant to this discussion, and emphasis on MUST added by me)

Reading these two items, it would appear that the bear hug, whether or not excessive, is definitely defined by the rules as intentional. I have found in the games that I have done, there is a very strong apprehension about referees calling intentional fouls. They never seem to want to do it, and even when I have had situations during the game (most occur later in the game, but some do occur throughout) that warrant it according to the rules, most of the time they don't call it, or if I ask my partner, they say "that wasn't intentional".

I do understand the concept of calling the game fairly throughout. That is important.

But I don't understand why many refs, even though the rules say one thing, they choose to ignore it. They seem to feel that the late game fouling to stop the clock, which is specifically defined in the rules as not allowed (not the late game part, but the fouling to stop the clock), is a part of the game and should be allowed. It seems to me that this isn't really a judgement call, but more of a "I don't like that rule, so I'm not going to enforce or call it." This doesn't seem like something that is supposed to be our purvue - we make judgements about plays, according to the rules, and make our calls based on that (and a little common sense... but common sense shoulnd't override a hard and fast rule) - you can't play a game without rules.

I'm expecting a firestorm after this one, because I have always been a by-the-book ref. Blast shield up!

I apologise for repeating this, but I didn't think after the replies I got that the basic question, on why we are calling intentionals the way we do vs. the way the book seems to want it called, was being addressed. Thanks for any input!