[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Im sorry i shouldn't have used the word "story" cause i too, believe the game should be called the same from start to finish.

Good.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

And my comment about judging action and not intent still holds true.

Agree.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

if we judged intent on that play its very possible that we give Rondo a Flagrant 1.

Nope, you have it backwards. If only the action of smacking someone directly in the mouth was ajudged, then the play would have been ruled a flagrant 1. It is when intent is brought into it that someone rationalizes the play down to a common foul by saying, "He was just going for the ball."
If you aren't going to officiate intent, then you shouldn't care what he was trying to do, you should observe and penalize WHAT HE DID DO.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Obvious pro philosophy garbage?? That "garbage" gets plays right in the 93-97 perecentile if im not mistaken. What other "philosophy" can tout that?

Yep, it's garbage because you have a league office that tells people to call it this way or that way, which isn't what it says in the rules book. In order to have any meaningful measure of whether or not a play is called correctly, the league would have to actually follow a set of written rules. They don't. They just talk and spin it however they wish.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

It's as simple as getting the play right, huh? That easy?

Should be. What else is an official striving to do out there?

Originally Posted by btaylor64

you can have opinions... everybody can, but your opinion and mine don't mean anything in regards to the Wade play. The NBA doesn't have "philosophies" we have standards and rules. The rule says in order to assess a Flagrant 1 the contact has to be unnecessary and Wade's contact was not unnecessary he was attempting to make a great defensive play with which he failed to do.

This paragraph summarizes why you don't get it.
1. You believe that the NBA follows standards and rules instead of philosophies. We disagree.
2. You don't believe that upending someone from behind and causing him to fall on his backside is unnecessary contact.
3. You state that Wade was "attempting" to make a great defensive play. We already covered the fact that you shouldn't care about what he was trying to do. That would be intent. You stated that intent shouldn't be judged, only the action.
4. You even admit that Wade failed in his attempt. Well, then shouldn't he be properly penalized for this failure? He is the one who took the risk of challenging from a very poor position, so when he wasn't able to make a great play he should pay the heavier penalty. He had the choice to let his opponent go uncontested which would have ensured his safety.
However, what did Wade do? He put the safety of his opponent at risk. That is what the official needs to be basing the decision upon. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So are you going to assess an intentional foul if this was in a college game? Doesn't the rule say the player has to make an attempt on the ball? if that's the case then that is what Wade did and you would not have a basis for assessing an intentional foul other than your opinion is that the airborne shooter is vulnerable and the chance of injury is high?? I actually think that's a noble thought process and thats why you should absolutely assess a foul, but by rule you're not justified in doing anything else.

This is exactly why you need to completely quit working NCAA level games and focus solely on the pro games, if you haven't already. You simply don't know the NCAA rules, and worse, you also don't care to learn them.

A player can definitely still be assessed an intentional personal foul despite making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. All the official has to deem is that the player still caused excessive contact.

Part 1 is the rule basis for deeming the Wade play an intentional personal foul in an NCAA setting.

2009 NCAA Rule
4-29-2
d. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal
foul that, on the basis of an official’s observation of the act, may be
purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the severity of
the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while
playing the ball;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the
clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. (Women) This act shall
also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary.
(See Rule 4-17.1.g)