[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I disagree. To me, if you are reffing intent on this play you are saying "wow he hit him in the face and wasn't making an attempt on the ball!" If you are reffing action then you say, "Was that hit to the head unnecessary and/or excessive".

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

This is where you have no clue what you're talking about. Our "league office" is now called the NBA Referee Operations Dept. Which is a seperate entity to David Stern and his league office. For you to say that we don't follow the written rules is a ridiculous statement.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Well apparently you don't know what it takes to have the complete package as a referee. its not solely about getting plays right. The "complete" referee is a phenomenal playcaller, great game manager and great communicator.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

1. I don't "believe" anything. I KNOW it! We have standards and we follow them very strongly.
2. I was perfectly fine with the FF1 at the point and time in the game and in fact you make a very good point and if you came to me during the game and said that exact statement, I would say "you know what Nevada, I agree let's go FF1"
3. What action was he performing then? I don't get how you're not judging the action???
4. I get what your saying about safety, but you are, in fact, penalizing him for his failure and therefore you did protect the shooter best you could... by blowing the whistle for a def. foul.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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)

So you're saying that this was "excessive" contact. So you are dumping him in the pro game then?? Would you have considered it "excessive" had the off. player landed on his feet?

Well I'll guarantee you this... you quit talking like you know pro rules and standards and ill quit trying to quote college rules. It's not that I didn't KNOW the rule I just didn't know all of it. I don't mind knowing the college rules and in fact I know most of them. I just learned a little more. Is that wrong?