Old Tool's idea of not calling an intentional foul unless someone gets pounded into the floor and gets their head split open is a great idea! In fact, let's change the criteria on all fouls to match a T-shirt my son used to wear. It had a picture of a player being loaded into an ambulance on a gurney. The lettering on the shirt read, "NO RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY - NO FOUL". :eek:

Your friend Dave told me he's got a new one on order: "No Autopsy -- No Foul".

I'm all for calling intentional fouls in the appropriate setting, and I've done it plenty of times. But I saw one called last night that clearly was not that was called such, and that's what makes it difficult. The big problem is to teach balance.

What did the official who called the intentional foul say when you asked him/her about it, Juulie?

Yup, sure you did. Two and a half hours later. Right after reading NevadaRef's and a few other's posts. You just needed a little time for reflection. Yup, we'll buy that.:D

I wonder if he takes an eraser to the scorebook at halftime to adjust fouls that really shouldn't have been fouls. Of course, JMO/OS is not a rec league official. He is a rec league PLAYER.

Worse - rec league assistant coach, or as he would say, an assistance coach. :p

Because that was the philosophy of the D-1 assignor that they worked for.

That's what I've seen and I'd agree. Now the next question is why do the D-1 assignors want the issue of calling intentional fouls handled the way it is being called?

This is a interesting concept. One that I think holds some merit. Another poster talked about balance. A 3rd factor to add to this is interpretation. I tried coming up with this 3-point system to make it easier for me to determine if I have an I/F, simply because I know what the objective of the defender is. Again it is being taught. Several years ago, after calling an I/F coach came up to me after the game and said, we teach our kids to foul hard in a situation like that. I told the coach I rest my case. However, to your point of not enough officials are calling it. I think another consensus is that if I (the official) call it and I'm wrong. The way these plays are scrutinized after the fact, especially at the state playoff level. You are ostracized by the assigners if you are wrong. In other words you had better be right because if you're not, you won't work any state playoff's games next year. Better to lean the other way so I can continue to work. I have recently notice that after I call an I/F at the school I gave you an example above. I have not been back to that school since. What does that tell you? I don’t know if that’s random of the draw or if the school actually voiced a concern to my assigner.

IMO, if you have a break-away wide open to the basket lay-up and a closing defender, the flag I/F should raise in your mind right then and there. Doesn’t mean you're going to have one but the potential exists, much like the atmosphere before a tornado. Doesn't mean it's going to be a tornado but the conditions exists and you should prepare yourself. Then you have a hard foul (intent), not trying to play defense but prevent a player from scoring a easy bucket, and finally the player being knocked to the floor involuntarily. If you got those 3 things, you should have an I/F. I've taken the guess work out of it. Add to this, a hit to the face, automatic on a fast breakaway layup, imo. Add another ingredient, team is up by 30 points.

We are officials to the game of basketball. That means we are suppose to uphold the integrity of the game. If a player steals the ball and has a wide open breakaway layup. That player should be able to go in and complete the play without any undue roughness and head on back down to play defense. This situation is not an automatic pass to go foul the player as hard as you can which is what we are allowing by not calling this an I/F. Somewhere down the line in all of this, the spirit of fair play has been compromised by the coaches that, in this particular situation, it is okay to go knock the crap out of the player because (A) most officials won’t call it and (B) we disguised this tactic by saying we're going for the ball and trying to prevent the easy score. Why stop doing it from a coaches prospective. We already know that 75% of the referees won’t call it because they are either too afraid thinking of the norm, don’t know the rules, and the others don’t want to get ostracized if they do.

It is up to us the officials to protect the integrity of the game and most of all, protect the safety of the players. I vote this is not a situation where we will allow undue roughness. I vote that any tactic deployed to stop an easy bucket by fouling the player unnecessary hard should be an I/F. Why wait until somebody gets seriously hurt before doing something about it, aka, the American way. Coaches can’t have it both ways, it’s an intentional foul when it’s my shooter, it’s just a hard foul, no big deal if it’s my defender. I am standing up for the game of bb and in my games this will be an I/F. If it gets me more time on the sidelines watching, then so be it, but at least I took a stand and my stand is for the betterment of the game.

Protect the shooter.

I thought this would be some fun/interesting reading until I realized it would be like reading a text book full of nonsense. Can someone else tell me if this is the normal crap or if it really has anything good? :D

I can't. I'm conserving time.

Too much for me to read...like when you go on those dating sites and someone has 10 paragraphs in their profile to describe themselves. You just say F' it and move on to the next one. :p

Another tie for the dumbest post ever on this forum.

That tells me it's a pretty smart school.