Re: Not quite correct
 

You have yet to really describe the play, all you are offering up is your opinion.

You said the throw-in was coming from the sideline FT line extended and the foul occured on the block ball side correct?

Where was the ball? Did the thrower still have it? Was it coming to the player being held?

Based on where the throw-in was administered and where a cutter may have been coming from, the center would be in the best position to see everything.

To answer your question about an intentional for a shirt grab, yes I have called it SEVERAL times. Mostly on break aways, but I have called it when a player was cutting back door and got grabbed from behind while the pass was coming.

The official was able to explain why he called it to you, why wasn't he tableside after the call?

Why did you not huddle after this unusual call so that one of you could explain it if you were not using the correct tableside mechanic?

i don't care if the play was not explained with every detail. I would be an idiot to think that would be enough for me to take sides.

That being said, the answer is Yes. I have been in that situation. I have worked with partners that made the call that should not have been made. I have wanted to crawl into a hole because a partner did something that made the crew look bad. It happens.

I feel for ya.

On the other hand, I am not stating that this is necessarily the scenario here. Impossible for me to judge. May be or maybe not.

Either way, I get your point and it has happened. I would challenge you, David, with the question: Did you man-up and approach your partner about this situation after the game? What did the crew think about it then?

#2 - you didn't answer my question about would you call an intentional foul on a player who grabs another player while their are jostling for position on a throw in?

that was my question to start with. I personally think it was a very bad call. A simple foul would have been the better call in that situation because <font color = red>it doesn't fit the criteria for an intentional foul</font>.

[/B][/QUOTE]I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it?

I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it? [/B][/QUOTE]

Change the scenario slightly -- B1 doesn't grab A1's jersey, but instead tries to beat A1 to a spot and fails -- it still meets all the criteria you mentioned, but is (probably, hopefully) not an intentional foul.

In the original play -- if B1 and A1 were "locked up" prior to the throw-in, and B1 instnctively grabbed the jersey as A1 started to move away for the throw-in, I'd have a common foul.

If A1 had moved away and B1 reached out and grabbed the jersey because B1 recognized that s/he "was beat" on the play, I'd be more likely to support an I foul.

I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it? [/B][/QUOTE]

Lots of great rulebook talk here, but there's an aspect that's being ignored here -- did it "feel" like an intentional foul? Lots of fouls meet the "rulebook" criteria for intentional and are correctly called common fouls.

Change the scenario slightly -- B1 doesn't grab A1's jersey, but instead tries to beat A1 to a spot and fails -- it still meets all the criteria you mentioned, but is (probably, hopefully) not an intentional foul.

In the original play -- if B1 and A1 were "locked up" prior to the throw-in, and B1 instnctively grabbed the jersey as A1 started to move away for the throw-in, I'd have a common foul.

If A1 had moved away and B1 reached out and grabbed the jersey because B1 recognized that s/he "was beat" on the play, I'd be more likely to support an I foul.
[/B][/QUOTE]Exactly. I agree completely with those scenarios completely. It's always a judgement call on the part of the official responsible for the call, as it was in the original post in this thread. And if I asked you in the dressing room after the game about whatever call that you did make, and you gave me <b>your</b> reasons why you either called it a common foul or an intentional personal foul, that should have been the end of it. It's your call and I gotta have at least a little faith in your judgement.

Without seeing the play either, I'm also not gonna second-guess whatever call your judgement did end up leading you to make. Again, jmo.

Lots of great rulebook talk here, but there's an aspect that's being ignored here -- did it "feel" like an intentional foul? Lots of fouls meet the "rulebook" criteria for intentional and are correctly called common fouls. [/B][/QUOTE]I didn't ignore that aspect at all, Rich. I don't have a clue whether it "felt" like an intentional foul. How could I? I never saw the play. The only info we had was that the guy that called it "felt" that it was intentional. Without seeing it, I personally ain't gonna say that he blew the call.

That was my point.

I did answer your question, David--at 3:53pm yesterday. That post is on p2.

The criteria for an intentional foul, as listed in NFHS rule 4-19-3, include <i><b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b> and <i><b>"contact away from the ball"</i></b> or <i><b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</i></b>. Could you please explain why the play you described doesn't have all three of those criteria for an intentional foul apply to it? [/B][/QUOTE]

That's good points, and I also looked in the case book and there is a similiar play.

So in retrospect, (according to the case book) this is simply NOT called because in my 12 years of calling and 10 years of coaching before that, I've never seen this type of play called.

As others have mentioned, most of the time all intentional fouls are called either on a breakaway play or in regards to time.

<b>"to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"</i></b>

Does not apply - they were simply jostling for position like happens everytime down the court between two post players.

<b>"contact away from the ball"</b>

This may have been his interpretation because the ball was away -

<b>"contact...when not playing the ball"</b>.
this is redundant.

<i>Edited by DB because I see Rich and Bob have covered what I was thinking </i>

So another question.

If this is how intentional fouls are to be called, then why are not most fouls called in the post intentional.

We see it every day with defensive players mugging an offensive post player and either nothing is called or a simple foul is called.

Personally I think the rule makers did not put enough information in the rules with regards to this play. I know a few years back we had POE about calling intentional fouls, but that was with regards to end of the game situations.

I feel like I can learn from any good discussion, but when we have a rule, but we don't have any officials calling that portion of a rule I just start wondering why.

Thanks for the help
David

[Edited by David B on Feb 22nd, 2005 at 11:57 AM]

David, the bottom line still is that your partner made a call based on his best judgement. That call was his to make, and he made it. The rulebook also supports his having the right to use his judgement as to whether he thinks the call should be an intentional foul or not. You questioned the call after the game and he gave you his reasons for making the call. You still absolutely refuse to accept his judgement regarding that call, and you'd like us to agree with you. Unfortunately, I can't and won't-- because I didn't see the call and I personally think that that it's unprofessional as hell to dump on a fellow official's judgement without having seen the call or hearing his version of the call. That's jmo.

Does that pretty well sum up where we're at? We disagree, and we're just going in circles repeating ourselves. Time to just let 'er go, imo.

'crap in the game' = false double foul, false multiple foul, or having to 'reach' to validate a call that wasn't obvious


JR, I believe I corrected my own mistake concerning the dead ball foul. You replied to my post and didn't correct my mistake. You brought in the rule that deals with dead ball foul being an intentional foul, but you didn't catch my mistake either in interpreting the situation as it had been given.

All I'm trying to say is if you go on the court every night to officiate the game using the rule book without any common sense being applied, well... do I have to say more???

1)False double fouls are crap? False double fouls are common as hell in any game. One example is a player being fouled, and then responding by shoving his opponent. That's a personal foul followed by a technical foul---> equalling a false double foul. Any foul on a foul shot that's committed before the clock starts is a false double foul too. That's crap to make those calls? Do you really know what false double fouls are?

2) Btw, how do really you know how I go on the court every night to officiate? Have you see me? How do you know that I don't use common sense? The same way that you know a fellow official completely screwed up an intentional foul, even though you never saw the play or talked to that official? Do I have to say more???

As an official, I think that you'd make a great fan.

RollTide...
You said something earlier about not just going in the locker room after a game and back-slapping everyone...
I was about to sponsor you in, what one of my buddy's and ex veteran official use to affectionately call us, the "Mutual Admiration Society"! ;)

'crap in the game' = false double foul, false multiple foul, or having to 'reach' to validate a call that wasn't obvious

Fair enough for a pre-game...but, the part about not wanting to have to explain the "hard" stuff to a coach...I'm not buying.

I will be the R on a Regional Game tonight. In our pre-game tonight, I could go with your "crap in the game" stuff, but IMO I would sound weak to our fellow officials from another association if I say we don't want to have to explain the hard stuff to them. Again, JMO. :)

I can't recite every rule # throughout the rule book. In fact, I only made a 92 on the NF certification test (closed book part II). False Double Foul is one of the rules I'm very aware of though, bcause a few years ago (when I first moved up to the varsity ranks) I butchered a call where I misapplied this rule.

I doubt very seriously that I've ever seen you officiate a game. Same as I didn't see the play that David was explaining to us to start this thread.

Beings that I haven't seen you officiate a game, I'm going to hold my comments on the perception I have of the type of official I envision you being. I will say this much though, I bet the fans do have fun at your games, lol

...and I would say that's a pretty big ASSumption on your part, as you said yourself...you've never seen me officiate. ;)

Also, relax. From what I'm seeing of your philosophy's of the intentional foul, I would say I'm right there with ya.

It's just you have a very experienced official, i.e. JR, giving you not only accurate rules knowledge...but, his philosophy of how to treat a fellow official.
At least, that's how I'm reading this post.

Not looking for agreement!
 

I could care less about anyone agreeing with me. I was there and I saw the play - I know it was a bad call.

That's why we talked about it after the game. But I was looking on this board for some guys to give me some input as to this type of call.

You gave me some rule info and I see that "by rule" he could make this call.

Now you said
<b>"it's unprofessional as hell to dump on a fellow official's judgement"</b>

Then how is an official supposed to learn - if I make a bad call I sure need someone to point it out to me so that I don't make the same call again.

I'm sure you didn't learn how to officiate without someone telling you a few things that you might need to change - I have things I have to look at every time I go to camp and that's in front of a lot of coaches and players.

IMO that's why we have a board like this to ask questions.
And despite all of the talk about "questioning" and official, I did learn a few things from this thread.

I think Bob's post above said it best.

That's how it should be officiated IMO and my interpretation of the rules.

If we disagree that's fine, we can as you say go on to other things - i'm sure i'll have something tonight in my game.

Thanks
David