Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyflipjack
Non-ref here hoping for some authoritative information. I was at the Cal game this past weekend and late in the 1st half a call was made that would eventually result in 7 points for UCLA. I think it was a fair call but nearly every other Cal fan disagrees.
Cal's Theo Robertson doubles the ball and loses his man, who heads towards the basket to receive the pass and easy score. Robertson can't make up the distance so grabs the player's shoulder as he goes up for the layup. Ref underneath the basket whistles the intentional foul as the ball falls through the hoop. Player makes both free throws and UCLA hits a 3 on the ensuing possession, netting them 7 points total.
|
Good summary of the situation!
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyflipjack
ESPN was doing the game. Digger Phelps called "intentional!" immediately,
|
Announcers don't have a clue (with the possible exception of Clark Kellogg, who has at least a clue or two, even if he's not always right)
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyflipjack
while Jay Bilas thought it was "technically" an intentional foul but that he doesn't like the rule itself; he thinks there should just be flagrant or no-call, since "intent" is hard to ascertain.
|
See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyflipjack
(Cal fans agreed, perhaps unaware that a flagrant would have meant Theo's ejection.) Bobby Knight thinks it's an awful call, but I think his reasoning is that an intentional personal foul should be before the shot.
|
Bobby Knight is so far out to lunch, he owns a Subway franchise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyflipjack
"I don't think you can call an intentional foul on a guy who gets fouled going to the bucket and makes the bucket," he said; I'm not sure if he meant that a ref isn't allowed or that they shouldn't in good conscience.
|
What he means is, "I refuse to understand or even listen to anyone who trys to explain the rules to me. I just don't care what's real, I live in my own dream world."
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyflipjack
Here's video; the foul is shown in replay at 1:30. Personally, even though it killed the Bears I think it was good refereeing. The ref made the "intentional" signal without hesitating, and it's not like anyone had to judge Theo's "intent" -- he grabbed the guy by the shoulder and was touching the player w/ his other hand.
|
You are absolutely right, it was excellent refereeing. Play was pretty much text-book intentional foul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skippyflipjack
That said, I've read the NCAA rule but don't have the experience to know the intent of the rule regarding grabbing a player to prevent a score. Was this correctly applied, or is the rule mainly intended to govern action up the court where there's no chance of a shot? Should the rule be amended so an intentional personal followed by a make results in 1 free throw plus the ball? Should the ref have waited a moment and let the basket result inform his decision? Would you have made this call?
|
The "intentional" foul is one of two things, either (1) a foul that "isn't a basketball play" and is intended to take away a clear and legal advantage by the opponent (nearly always the team with the ball), or (b) it's an excessively rough foul. At the NCAA level, a play has to be pretty much a full-out body block at 100 mph to qualify for the second definition. The first definition is generally what's used -- and the most misunderstood. "Intentional" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intention. It's okay to call an intentional foul in certain situations where the foul-er has no intenion of fouling, just gets sort of frustrated or carried away. The play you cite is a classic example. Doesn't matter what the foul-er intended (or what he was thinking). What he did WAS NOT a basketball play. It's really that simple.
Quote:
|
Should the rule be amended so an intentional personal followed by a make results in 1 free throw plus the ball? Should the ref have waited a moment and let the basket result inform his decision? Would you have made this call?
|
I like the rule just the way it is. It penalizes enough to make the play not worth it. No the ref should not have waited, imo. and, yes, I would have made this call. Very, very easy.