Why won't they call the intentional?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

As much as I dislike the NBA, you have a point about this.

[sj]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'd sure agree with that. Just tweak the rule to reflect the way it's being called concerning the strategic foul.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by 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.

Finally, someone who has weighed in on this topic and not digress to petty insults. Very well stated and I agree. JR, you should take note here. Notice how this poster doesn't care about me or my name or my pseudo name. He focus on the topic. The same is true in officiating. Staying focus when all hell is breaking lose around you. One of my toughest straits, imo. You and the peanut gallery here, that is those that engage in character insults and not the issue, are like fans in my games. Man, do they go off when they don't get a call in there favor, and GOD only help me if I miss a call! I really thought this one guy was going to have a heart-attack the way he carried on about a 3-second lane violation I didn't call right at 3 seconds in a girls varsity game. Girls parents are the worse by far, imo. However, JR, the way you like to throw officials under the bus, you are a close 2nd. BTW, have you thrown any officials under the bus lately?