Why won't they call the intentional?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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?

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

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by PYRef

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

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

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

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Another tie for the dumbest post ever on this forum.

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

[sj]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

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

[mplagrow]

We are officials to the game of basketball. That means we are suppose to uphold the integrity of the game.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

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

[Old School]

Originally Posted by sj

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

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.

[sj]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

You, Sir, are no Ali.

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You, Sir, are no Ali.

He's not even Buster Douglas.

[Nevadaref]

Hooray!!! I just saw one called.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

Nope, just your posts, JMO

[SMEngmann]

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.