The Official Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   End of game part 2 (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/102060-end-game-part-2-a.html)

Rich Mon Jan 09, 2017 01:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 996762)
Go to the guy that made the call and give him additional information. "Look, timeout was called and the ball was already dead. What have you got?"

Hopefully he'll say "Nothing, time out."
Oh, right, you don't think a signal actually means anything.

just another ref Mon Jan 09, 2017 02:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 996765)
Oh, right, you don't think a signal actually means anything.
Signal is a signal. Show me something that says a signal is irreversible.

Camron Rust Mon Jan 09, 2017 02:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny d (Post 996757)
How exactly does one determine that a foul isn't an intentional foul after an official signals the foul as such?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich (Post 996759)
It's pretty hard to undo this train wreck after the fact.

Of course if the other official didn't signal an INT at the spot, it would be *easy* to walk that back / ignore that.
Maybe it isn't so hard....why was it intentional? Excessive contact? Or just neutralizing an obvious advantage?

If the latter there was no advantage to be neutralized since the ball was dead. I could see retracting that intentional since it no longer meets the definition of intentional. If it was excessive contact, however, that doesn't change because the ball was dead...charge it.

just another ref Mon Jan 09, 2017 02:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 996773)
Maybe it isn't so hard....why was it intentional? Excessive contact? Or just neutralizing an obvious advantage?

If the latter there was no advantage to be neutralized since the ball was dead. I could see retracting that intentional since it no longer meets the definition of intentional. If it was excessive contact, however, that doesn't change because the ball was dead...charge it.

yep

crosscountry55 Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 996773)
Maybe it isn't so hard....why was it intentional? Excessive contact? Or just neutralizing an obvious advantage?

If the latter there was no advantage to be neutralized since the ball was dead. I could see retracting that intentional since it no longer meets the definition of intentional. If it was excessive contact, however, that doesn't change because the ball was dead...charge it.
This is an excellent point and wisely rules-based. But, say you walk back from the signal. How do you sum this up in one sentence or less to the incredulous coach who saw said signal?

Camron Rust Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 996816)
This is an excellent point and wisely rules-based. But, say you walk back from the signal. How do you sum this up in one sentence or less to the incredulous coach who saw said signal?
Good question....very carefully and even so it will probably not be well received.

just another ref Tue Jan 10, 2017 03:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by crosscountry55 (Post 996816)
This is an excellent point and wisely rules-based. But, say you walk back from the signal. How do you sum this up in one sentence or less to the incredulous coach who saw said signal?

"Coach, intentional foul is a judgment call, and my judgment was based on the fact that I thought the ball was live, which I have just learned is not true."

OKREF Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 996825)
"Coach, intentional foul is a judgment call, and my judgment was based on the fact that I thought the ball was live, which I have just learned is not true."
Coach: "So if you thought it was an intentional foul live, wouldn't that be a technical or flagrant foul with a dead ball?"

Camron Rust Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 996874)
Coach: "So if you thought it was an intentional foul live, wouldn't that be a technical or flagrant foul with a dead ball?"
"No"

BoomerSooner Tue Jan 10, 2017 02:49pm
I understand the concept that intentional contacting an opponent when the ball is dead is a technical foul, but does the absence of player knowledge concerning the status of the ball influence the call we would make in any other situation?

Exact same scenario, except instead of the intentional foul by B, A1 dunks the ball (or for fun, leave the intentional foul in the situation and A1 still dunks/attempts to dunk). The same lack of knowledge concerning the status of the ball still exists (and extends beyond just the players as you have an official still covering the play like it is a live ball). How many of us give A1 a T for attempting to dunk/dunking a dead ball?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57am.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1