I thought Hess did a great job in the UL/Wash game tonight

[TubbyRules]

opinions on a call from last night

in the Bucknell/KU game the ref called an intentional foul on a Bucknell player in a crucial moment that gave KU 2 free's and the ball, it was a good call, but, is often not called for whatever reasons

in the Okie St./Arizona game last night, with 2.8 seconds left the same type play took place when an Arizona player reached from behind and gave their last non-free-shooting foul to stop the clock, it wasn't called intentional, Bilas pointed out, as I was thinking, 'that could have been called intentional'

in both cases the games were close and were on the line, why is it in one an intentional and not an intentional in the other?

interested in honest opinions. thank you.

[zebraman]

Originally posted by TubbyRules
opinions on a call from last night

in the Bucknell/KU game the ref called an intentional foul on a Bucknell player in a crucial moment that gave KU 2 free's and the ball, it was a good call, but, is often not called for whatever reasons

in the Okie St./Arizona game last night, with 2.8 seconds left the same type play took place when an Arizona player reached from behind and gave their last non-free-shooting foul to stop the clock, it wasn't called intentional, Bilas pointed out, as I was thinking, 'that could have been called intentional'

in both cases the games were close and were on the line, why is it in one an intentional and not an intentional in the other?

interested in honest opinions. thank you.

Because there is judgement involved. Referees are required to make many split-second decisions in every game, many of which are going to be debateable by fans (don't forget htat fans is short for fanatics). You know how you fans tell if a call was correct? If it favored their team.

Individuals without reffing experience on a high level just have no clue about officiating. Here you are, a complete novice and you're analyzing NCAA officiating. I can't decide if it's as funny as it is pathetic.

Z

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by TubbyRules
in both cases the games were close and were on the line, why is it in one an intentional and not an intentional in the other?

interested in honest opinions. thank you.

I will try to explain it to you. The wording "intentional foul" has little or nothing to do with a foul being called intentional. A foul can be totally unintentional and be called intentional by rule. Most commentators do not know the rule as most of the public does not know the rule. They think by the name of the foul every foul that is intentional should be called an intentional foul.

That might not help you in your understanding, but that is just the way they explain the rule in the rulebooks.

Peace

[TubbyRules]

the way this lowly fan understood the 'intentional foul' rule is that if you are going for the ball, it is not intentional, if you have no chance of getting the ball and foul for the sake of fouling than this is intentional

i understand that in any given game there are alot of 'clock stopping' fouls where this could technically be called an intentional, but, is not because the ref's understand the intent

so, again, i understand it is a judgement, but, both cases looked very much the same yet they were called differently, to a fan that watches around 200 games a year, this is confusing

[BktBallRef]

In the Bucknell game, the defender was trying to foul to prevent the KU player from getting a breakaway layup. he reached out and grabbed the jersey from behind.

In the Arizona play, the defender fouled the dribbler on the dribbling arm. The fact that it was from behind does not make it an intentional foul. He was not trying to foul to take away an opponent's advantageou position. He ws playing the ball. He simply made a strategic foul.

BTW, the rest of these guys may buy you're "change of heart" but I know bull$hit when I smell it. Hopefully, they're just giving you the benfit of the doubt. I know better.

Go Utes!

[drothamel]

Two plays that look the same never are. Look at your examples, one occurs in the middle of a game (so to speak), and one occurs at the very end of a game. This will have an effect on both the players and the officials. If I remember correctly, the Bucknell/KU foul occured as a player was going towards the basket, maybe even in the paint? That also is different from the Arizona fouls, which occured at midcourt. "Playing the ball" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the call, as JRut said. I saw both calls, and to me, they both looked like good calls. Actaully, I thought that the official in the Arizona game passed on some contact before he called the foul, which may be why he called it the way he did. He saw the contact, watched the play develop and because of the advantage, TWEET! Just like they tell us to. All I can say is don't get the impression that every play is is the same, even when it may look that way at first glance.

[TubbyRules]

the KU/Bucknell call was at the end of the game, under a minute left...and it was between midcourt and the three point arc

while it is true the Bucknell was more in a 'reach' mode
the Arizona player looked like he was reaching too

in both cases the ref knew the player was trying to stop the guy with the ball, so, it is interesting to see how the moment is interpreted

thanks for the input

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by zebraman

Because there is judgement involved. Referees are required to make many split-second decisions in every game, many of which are going to be debateable by fans (don't forget htat fans is short for fanatics). You know how you fans tell if a call was correct? If it favored their team.

Individuals without reffing experience on a high level just have no clue about officiating. Here you are, a complete novice and you're analyzing NCAA officiating. I can't decide if it's as funny as it is pathetic.

Z

Actually, Zebe, I thought it was a fairly well worded question. It's relatively neutral, with not a lot of strong feeling one way or the other.

I'm with BITS on this one. Cut the guy a little slack. After Kentucky plays, with Hess working, THEN we'll know what the core is made of!

[TravelinMan]

Originally posted by TubbyRules
the KU/Bucknell call was at the end of the game, under a minute left...and it was between midcourt and the three point arc

while it is true the Bucknell was more in a 'reach' mode
the Arizona player looked like he was reaching too

in both cases the ref knew the player was trying to stop the guy with the ball, so, it is interesting to see how the moment is interpreted

thanks for the input

Tubby, if you want to improve your credibility and earn some respect in this forum, get your hands on the rule books (rule book, case book, illustrated)and read them thoroughly. Then come back here and ask some pertinent questions and LISTEN to the answers. You'll learn there is no such thing as a "reach in foul" (perfectly legal to reach if there is no contact). This phrase was invented by broadcasters such as Billy Packer who don't really know the rules of the game but want to be controversial and hence earn a living.

Welcome to the forum, BTW.

[TubbyRules]

i understand that contact has to be made on the reach in

just using laymen terms

[TravelinMan]

Originally posted by TubbyRules
i understand that contact has to be made on the reach in

just using laymen terms

In the words of Pat Conroy (a former teacher and well-known author)when confounded by his students: "Sweet Jesus!"

[zebraman]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Actually, Zebe, I thought it was a fairly well worded question. It's relatively neutral, with not a lot of strong feeling one way or the other.

I'm with BITS on this one. Cut the guy a little slack. After Kentucky plays, with Hess working, THEN we'll know what the core is made of!

I'm with BktBallRef. Based on previous posts, I think the guy is a troll.

On another note, I kinda like "Zebe" though. Might start using that.

Z (Zebe)