The Official Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   The Big "X" (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/14453-big-x.html)

Jurassic Referee Tue Jul 06, 2004 03:34pm
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
.... let's just say we disagree.
You can say it if you want.
I won't.
mick
You're not being very scrutable today, are you?
Am too.
mick
Sooooo......could we say that you are a scrutam?

blindzebra Tue Jul 06, 2004 03:42pm
Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra

One of our primary concerns should be safety. By not calling that soft strategic foul you are encouraging the body slam or the big swinging hit. I'd rather be safe then have it escalate.
You are not correct.
I do not encourage flagrant fouls in any of my sports.
I do not encourage any form of unsporting conduct in any of my sports.
I am resentful.
mick
No more. If it happens to escalate, I can cross my forearms.

Encourage, facilitate, abet take your pick.

rainmaker Tue Jul 06, 2004 05:48pm
Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
When I think about it, it occurred to me that by calling the type of contact that I called, I was in fact buying the defense a little more time (even if they wanted the foul).
This seems to me like an important point. When they're just barely fouling, and not really getting the job done, and then the offensive coach starts screaming about not calling the fouls, I say, "Coach, do you want to stop the clock and give them the ball?" Then like you say, if they give the body-slam, it's capital X time.
Most good coaches have no problem stopping the clock, that means they get to shoot FTs or will soon enough. As for letting the small "strategic" fouls go & waiting for the body slam, well, let's just say we disagree.
I'm not talking about any foul that would be called at any time in the game. I'm talking about the hack that's all air, or the push that misses. Perhaps a quarter-inch of contact for a thirtieth of a second. The offense is deliberately trying to keep the ball away from the foul, so the clock won't be stopped. Then the coach is yelling that he doesn't want the body-check. Well, make up your mind coach, if you want the average foul, slow down the ball a little and give the defense a chance. I had this situation several times this summer, and it got annoying.

Is that scrutable enough?

Mark Padgett Tue Jul 06, 2004 08:48pm
Sometimes the foul is so obviously intentional you have to lie down on your back, stick your legs up in the air and cross them.

I've seen Juulie do this. It really shows off her fishnets. :p

ChuckElias Tue Jul 06, 2004 09:19pm
Just my two cents on this question. I have called this an intentional foul, and I have at other times called it a common foul. The time I called it intentional, the defender just stood there, not moving, not trying to play defense at all. Just stood like a statue, took two handfuls (handsful?) of offensive jersey and kept the kid from running his route.

The times when I have called it common, the defender was actively playing defense but got faked out of his jock (her sportsbra) and grabbed the offensive jersey out of instinct.

Just my experience.

ChuckElias Tue Jul 06, 2004 09:22pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The whole idea of an intentional foul is that the official MUST judge the intent. Here's the definition straight from the NFHS rulebook:

Rule 4-19-3- <i>"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul shall also be ruled as intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent"</i>.
JR, I would disagree with your statement that the "whole" idea of the intentional foul is for the official to judge intent. I think the underlined parts of the rule above show that intent is not a necessary component of an intentional foul.

Would you agree?

ChuckElias Tue Jul 06, 2004 09:27pm
Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by blindzebra
By not calling that soft strategic foul you are encouraging the body slam or the big swinging hit. I'd rather be safe then have it escalate.
While I personally usually do call the soft strategic contact (even if there is little advantage gained), it is simply untrue to say that not calling it "encourages" (or facilitates or abets) a hard intentional foul.

If a police officer fails to give a speeding ticket to a driver who is driving 55 in a 55 mph zone, is that officer condoning or encouraging speeding? All mick is saying is that he doesn't call soft contact if it's not really a foul, just like the cop who doesn't give the speeding ticket.

If the driver decides to press his luck and go 80, then he gets the big ticket. If the defender slams the kid, he gets the big X.

Dan_ref Tue Jul 06, 2004 09:59pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
When I think about it, it occurred to me that by calling the type of contact that I called, I was in fact buying the defense a little more time (even if they wanted the foul).
This seems to me like an important point. When they're just barely fouling, and not really getting the job done, and then the offensive coach starts screaming about not calling the fouls, I say, "Coach, do you want to stop the clock and give them the ball?" Then like you say, if they give the body-slam, it's capital X time.
Most good coaches have no problem stopping the clock, that means they get to shoot FTs or will soon enough. As for letting the small "strategic" fouls go & waiting for the body slam, well, let's just say we disagree.
I'm not talking about any foul that would be called at any time in the game. I'm talking about the hack that's all air, or the push that misses. Perhaps a quarter-inch of contact for a thirtieth of a second. The offense is deliberately trying to keep the ball away from the foul, so the clock won't be stopped. Then the coach is yelling that he doesn't want the body-check. Well, make up your mind coach, if you want the average foul, slow down the ball a little and give the defense a chance. I had this situation several times this summer, and it got annoying.

Is that scrutable enough?
Well, I'm talking about the soft strategic foul.

If B1 gets a hand on A1 with the ball call it.

If A can evade B then don't call it. But if you're saying team A is able to move the ball & avoid even the soft foul but coach A is screaming his fool head off for the foul then this guy is beyond help and is best ignored.

IMO.

ChuckElias Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:32pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
If B1 gets a hand on A1 with the ball call it.

If A can evade B then don't call it.

IMO.
That happens to be MO, too. :)

Mark Padgett Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:41pm
Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias

If a police officer fails to give a speeding ticket to a driver who is driving 55 in a 55 mph zone, is that officer condoning or encouraging speeding?
Huh?

Dan_ref Tue Jul 06, 2004 10:59pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Padgett
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias

If a police officer fails to give a speeding ticket to a driver who is driving 55 in a 55 mph zone, is that officer condoning or encouraging speeding?
Huh?
Must have put an extra ice cube in his diet coke tonight...just ignore him.

Jurassic Referee Wed Jul 07, 2004 03:20am
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The whole idea of an intentional foul is that the official MUST judge the intent. Here's the definition straight from the NFHS rulebook:

Rule 4-19-3- <i>"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul shall also be ruled as intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent"</i>.
JR, I would disagree with your statement that the "whole" idea of the intentional foul is for the official to judge intent. I think the underlined parts of the rule above show that intent is not a necessary component of an intentional foul.

Would you agree?
Yeah, I would agree for the underlined part, but I think that "intent" must still be judged in most cases. But, don't you still have to use your individual judgement in those other cases though to still classify the type of foul you're gonna call? As Nick said, the "action" itself is a foul. To say whether that "action" should be ruled an intentional foul or not still requires a judgement on the calling official's part, doesn't it?

ChuckElias Wed Jul 07, 2004 07:58am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by BushRef
Maybe it's just me, but last I checked it was legal to go 55 in a 55 zone.
That's exactly the point. It is also legal to cause contact, as long as that contact does not give the defender an unfair advantage.

Now do you guys get it? All mick is saying is that if there's no foul (b/c the contact doesn't warrant a foul), then he doesn't blow the whistle. Just like the cop who doesn't give the ticket.

Many of us are saying that we call a foul even on minimal contact where there's no real advantage gained in end-of-game situations. I think Mick would say that's like giving a speeding ticket to a guy who hasn't done anything wrong. He's just saying to wait until the defender commits an actual foul before blowing the whistle.

I'll try to limit my use of analogies in the future. . .

Nevadaref Wed Jul 07, 2004 08:03am
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee


From a "Point of Emphasis" on intentional fouls in the 2000/2001 rulebook- <i>"An intentional foul has occurred when a team is obviously committing a foul, late in the game, to stop the clock and force the opponent into a throw-in or free-throw situation. Acts that must be deemed intentional include grabbing a player from behind, wrapping the arms around a player, grabing a player away from the ball, grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored, when coach/player says "watch, we're going to foul", excessive contact on a player attempting a shot--- and the last one that happens to be very germane to this thread- GRABBING/HOLDING A PLAYER BY THEIR JERSEY IN ORDER TO IMPEDE THEIR PROGRESS."</i>
JR,
Great job and thanks for digging that POE out. I was recently asked by a fellow official about this and could only remember reading it somewhere, but not where.

mick Wed Jul 07, 2004 08:04am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by BushRef
Maybe it's just me, but last I checked it was legal to go 55 in a 55 zone.
That's exactly the point. It is also legal to cause contact, as long as that contact does not give the defender an unfair advantage.

Now do you guys get it? All mick is saying is that if there's no foul (b/c the contact doesn't warrant a foul), then he doesn't blow the whistle. Just like the cop who doesn't give the ticket.

Many of us are saying that we call a foul even on minimal contact where there's no real advantage gained in end-of-game situations. I think Mick would say that's like giving a speeding ticket to a guy who hasn't done anything wrong. He's just saying to wait until the defender commits an actual foul before blowing the whistle.

I'll try to limit my use of analogies in the future. . .
Works for me.
Thanks, Chuck.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41am.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1