He doesn't really say anything. Now I want my three minutes back.

Ummm....no. I can't relate to that one. Sounds like you need to get out more BNR!:D

Nah, I'm trying to stay in more. Surfing the net is cheaper than trolling sports bars and nightclubs...and I'm less likely to get a DUI :eek:

But I digress...I am one who does not shy away from calling intentional/excessive contact fouls.

Why do I get the feeling that everything you don't agree with is a tie for the dumbest post ever on this forum?

OS-Some advice. Don't just set things up on a tee for people.

<i>We are officials to the game of basketball. That means we are suppose to uphold the integrity of the game.</i>

:D

Actually, he said "dumbest", but "dumpest" is also appropriate. :cool:

Advice taken, and some advice to you. A wise man once said, never under estimate your opponent. Remember Ali vs. Foreman....Foremen threw his best shots, was clearly the stronger of the two, and still lost the fight.

Thanks. But if it's all the same to you I think I'll avoid taking on all heavyweight title fighting boxers.

Dude this is not a heavyweight fight and there is not shot that is going to declare you a winner.

You will not change people's opinions by anything you say now. They have already formed their opinion about you and the positions you have taken. The problem for you is that your opinions are not anywhere on the radar.

Peace

You, Sir, are no Ali.

He's not even Buster Douglas.

Hooray!!! I just saw one called.

Illinois/Minnesota 2nd half breakaway foul = intentional. Great call.

Nope, just your posts, JMO

I think a lot of the problem that exists with whether or not to call an intentional foul exists because of the inheirant inconsistencies of the rule as well as the fact that there is no clearly defined criteria in the rulebook. For instance, we all agree that fouling to stop the clock is a legimate strategy, yet this is the essence of what an "intentional foul" is. A hard foul causing excessive contact is also ruled as intentional.

I think that this would be easier to call if we adopted the NBA's rules, replacing intentional fouls with Flagrant Penalty 1 and adopting the clear path foul and away from the play foul rules to cover the other aspects of the intentional foul. This would serve the purpose of making the game easier to officiate by allowing fouling at the end of the game as a legitimate strategy by rule, rather than by custom, and by clearly defining the types of infractions to call which make up the current intentional foul rule. Just my opinion, but I'd prefer the NBA system, or a modified version of it, compared to the current intentional foul rule.