Seemed right, but I still don't like it

[WinterWillie]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The key here is "low skill level". You have to factor that into any call you make in that game.

[/B]

What does the skill level of the players have to do with whether you're gonna call it an intentional foul, or not?

An elbow is an elbow at any skill level,age level, etc. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then why even mention "low skill level"? He is the one struggling with the call, not me.

[rcwilco]

Chuck,
While I am not even close to your level I would have done the same thing and have, at the JV level. Also I remember a few years ago watching a game on TV with New Mexico and somebody. One of the first fouls of the game was similar and they called flagrant and threw the player out! Did not matter to them when it was called

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WinterWillie

What does the skill level of the players have to do with whether you're gonna call it an intentional foul, or not?

An elbow is an elbow at any skill level,age level, etc. [/B]

Then why even mention "low skill level"? He is the one struggling with the call, not me. [/B][/QUOTE]Do you ever answer a question?

I thought that you might have had a point to make. Apparently not!

[davidw]

Chuck,

Ok, you've had this 'sitch' happen that your a little unsure about. You've gotten feedback made some decisions on how you'll handle the same thing next time. Now it's 'next time' and the same exact sitch--or at least as exact as can be happens: What's your call now?

[WinterWillie]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you ever answer a question?

I thought that you might have had a point to make. Apparently not! [/B]

The point is that when he mentioned "low skill level", he apparently was factoring that in his head which we do as officials either consciously or unconsciously when we referee different types (skill level, age level, etc.) of games. This concept apparently was too subtle for you to understand. Comprende usted?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by WinterWillie
[/B]

The point is that when he mentioned "low skill level", he apparently was factoring that in his head which we do as officials either consciously or unconsciously when we referee different types (skill level, age level, etc.) of games. This concept apparently was too subtle for you to understand. Comprende usted?
[/B][/QUOTE]What I do comprehend is that you are completely avoiding answering my question. You also very nicely deleted the specifics, so let me repeat them for you:
- You stated that you have to factor "low skill level" into any call that you make in that game.
- My question was, and is "what do the skill levels of the players have to do with whether you're gonna call an intentional foul or not?".

Do you have an answer for that? I'd certainly like to know why the same play- a deliberately thrown elbow- could be an intentional foul at one level, and not an intentional foul at a different level. Do you use the same reasoning for an elbow that might catch the an opponent in the face too?

[JRutledge]

I see JR thinks he is Tom Cruise and Willie is Jack Nicholson.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I see JR thinks he is Tom Cruise and Willie is Jack Nicholson.

Yeah, if Tom Cruise fell out of an ugly tree, and hit every branch on the way down!

[Hawks Coach]

Guess this has been tossed around abit already, buyt I'll add my dos centavos.

I often read of refs worrying about a late T or INT deciding a close game. This is the opposite. It is early, plenty of time for teams to recover and "let the players decide the game." I think you send a great message to the players. It does seem a bit out of place as a first foul. But you saw what you saw, and if it was as you describe, the call is solid. Hopefully you can review the tape and determine that what you initially saw is backed up on review.

I also agree that this is a case where a (very slight) delay before signalling the INT might pay just to gather your thoughts and be sure.