Was I out of line here?

[BK]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoeT on 01-24-2000 12:09 PM
The dark side of me (that as a coach) has come out again. Let me know if I was dead wrong here....

I was coaching a 6th grade girls game this past weekend. One of my players was driving for an uncontested layup when an opponent made contact from behind (a push). A common foul was called.

At the intermission, I approched the ref (there was only one) and asked why that play wasn't an intentional foul. He got really angry and told me that I clearly didn't understand the rule. I quoted him the 1999-2000 point of emphasis that describes this exact play as an intentional. He then said "but that call is not in the 'spirit' of the rules 'at this level.'" I explained that the safety of the players was always in the spirit of the rules - especially at this level and that this was a dangerous play. The guy's getting really hot at this point and starts barking "did your player fall?" Whenever I try to respond he cuts me off and says again, "did your player fall" (as if to say that the lack of a fall proves that the play was not dangerous.)

I simply walked back to my bench. As a courtesy, I shook his hand afterward and made some small talk, but I still disagree vehemently.

Oh, here's another question -

At on point he said the the defender was "going for the ball." Now she was on the other side of my player so as to make contact with her back. He gave up on this line of reasoning, but my question is: could a player be construed as legitimately going for the ball if the offensive player is *between* her and the ball?

Ok, so it's mostly sour grapes, but I honestly want to know if you guys think I was out of line.

Thanks!!

Joe

---

I personally hate the Intentional foul rule because of the "gray" area surrounding it. If I had my druthers, I would like to just eject unsporsmanlike behavior like pushing a kid going for a layup or not going for the ball when trying to get a foul to stop the clock.