You're absolutley right, and that's why you, me and probably 99% of us on here would've made the same call that was made.. :D

Looking at the play live-action there is no way to deduce that Tatum intentionally contacted the Bradley player. But watching the replay a few times I think it's quite clear what Tatum did was intentional. But we don't officiate via YouTube. On the spot, when it was time to make a decision, I believe the official made the most common sense choice.

It's funny, I sent the link to a 23 year-old friend of mine who is already a ref in a D1, a D2, and two D3 conferences. He grew up in Missouri with Tatum and my friend sent back an email saying it's old playground trick he taught Tatum back in elementary school...LOL

What's interesting is that b/c of the whistle, in NCAA-Men's ball SIU could have brought defensive subs in but in NCAA-Women's ball no subs would have been allowed.

Part of our job as officials is to call what obvious to everyone watching and participating in the game. You are trying to now read minds as to why a player is doing what they are doing. You also have shown no interpretation that this is the only way to go. You even have to explain why you feel this was the wrong call in great detail. Do not be a rulebook official where you find one line in a rulebook to make a decision that is at best questionable.

Peace

My argument isn't what the call was, it is that people insist that poor little Tatum just happened to bump into the Thrower on his way back to the playing court. I've also stated that I agree with the call made. Since, I have current access to the video, and I've replayed it several times, I've formed my opinion on young Mr. Tatum's intent.

As Dan said, the official did not have the benefit of several replays or the angle in which that we have. The official was standing right there and had one chance to get the call. I do not buy that is "had to be intentional" because I think the player was just trying to get onto the court. For all we know he might have been running to a spot on the court where he was supposed to be or towards a player he was guarding. I think you can also find what you want in the replay. Now that is not how we officiate in the real world. We call what we see and what is obvious. Calling something based on a very obscure situation we read in the rulebook is not good officiating. The fact that we are having this debate shows how much of a judgment call this is and what you might see as clear is not so clear to even more people.

Peace

Rut, I agree!!! Well done!!! And well said!!!

JRut... I think I posted this to Dan earlier... Get off nutz...

That should read MY NUTZ!

:D <i></i>

Not Sure This Helps, But ...
 

NFHS Rules: Offensive player is preparing to inbound the ball. Defensive player crosses the boundary and fouls the inbounder. The call, in this specific case, would be an intentional foul, and a warning that counts toward the four delay situations.

The only thing different about this play is that the defender is already legally out of bounds. My best guess: Intentional foul. I could live with this call, but I'm not sure that the NFHS Rule Book would back me up 100%.

I would have to judge it this way, if the play had occurred inbounds would I have called a foul or a travel?

If I say foul, then this is an intentional personal foul.
If I say travel, then I handle it as the official did in the game.

NFHS rule 10-3-6(a) would back you if you called a "T". It's that or a re-set imo.