More Oden Foul Talk

[Larks]

A Cincinnati area talkshow host received an e-mail from a "D2 / D3" ref relative to the Oden foul and intentional fouls at the end of the game and posted his comments on his blog.

Here are three points given to me by a college official of 20+ years.

1. The assignment chairman for these conferences/leagues have required meetings every offseason where game situations are reviewed and discussed. End of game issues are always on the agenda.

2. Here is what we were told on a number of different occasions over many seasons by a number of different assignment chairmen and many coaches who attended these meetings: if the foul is blatantly/unequivocally intentional: a punch that connects, a hard push where the player gets seriously injured, an undercut where the player sails through the air and lands on his back or head then you are instructed/required to call such a foul intentional or flagrant.

3. If on the other hand there is some doubt in your mind about the severity of the foul and the factors listed above are absent you were instructed NOT to call it intentional or flagrant and "let the kids decide the outcome of the game."

4. This makes such a call very subjective and subject to officials' interpretation but they have drilled it into your head that at the end of the game there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that it was intentional and if it is questionable you are expected to opt for the less serious foul.

Lance, This is what I believe caused the official to make the call he did (although I do not necessarily agree with the decision, I am explaining why I think it was called the way it was).

[kycat1]

if the foul is blatantly/unequivocally intentional: a punch that connects, a hard push where the player gets seriously injured, an undercut where the player sails through the air and lands on his back or head then you are instructed/required to call such a foul intentional or flagrant.
I guess somebody has decided to change the rules. I thought an intentional foul was to stop the clock by intentionally fouling an opponent without going for the ball to stop the game clock to give a possible advantage to your team by keeping time on the clock. What I copied above is the definition of a flagrant foul not an intentional foul.
Oden's foul is the classic example of an intentional foul and should have been called by any "good" official PERIOD!
Xavier got screwed!

[RushmoreRef]

Originally Posted by kycat1

if the foul is blatantly/unequivocally intentional: a punch that connects, a hard push where the player gets seriously injured, an undercut where the player sails through the air and lands on his back or head then .


I guess somebody has decided to change the rules. I thought an intentional foul was to stop the clock by intentionally fouling an opponent without going for the ball to stop the game clock to give a possible advantage to your team by keeping time on the clock. What I copied above is the definition of a flagrant foul not an intentional foul.

Oden's foul is the classic example of an intentional foul and should have been called by any "good" official PERIOD!
Xavier got screwed!

you are instructed/required to call such a foul intentional or flagrant

Why does it say it should be called "intentional or flagrant" if it is the definition of a "flagrant" foul????

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by kycat1

if the foul is blatantly/unequivocally intentional: a punch that connects, a hard push where the player gets seriously injured, an undercut where the player sails through the air and lands on his back or head then you are instructed/required to call such a foul intentional or flagrant.
I guess somebody has decided to change the rules. I thought an intentional foul was to stop the clock by intentionally fouling an opponent without going for the ball to stop the game clock to give a possible advantage to your team by keeping time on the clock. What I copied above is the definition of a flagrant foul not an intentional foul.
Oden's foul is the classic example of an intentional foul and should have been called by any "good" official PERIOD!
Xavier got screwed!

[mick]

Thanks, Larks !
Sounds like what I am seeing.

[SMEngmann]

I think that the above posts are very relevant to what we've seen so far this year at the tournament. Here we have directive, reportedly from on high encouraging officials, strongly, to make safe calls. Of course, many of the calls that have been criticized so far in the tournament have been calls that can be deemed as "safe." The two main examples are the Oden intentional foul and the hanging on the rim in the Tennessee-Virginia game. In my opinion, both of those calls were incorrect, of course I am not nearly at the NCAA tournament level.

I've heard Dave Libbey speak, and one of the core things that he says is that you can call the exact same play different ways and be right both times. Libbey is referring to a play that we might want early in the game as a tempo setter, but not to call with the game on the line because it didn't have a direct impact on the play. I think this concept has been taken too far in these two cases. If we're not talking the last 30 seconds of a tight elimination game, but in the first half, in my opinion these are no brainer calls. The problem is that the penalty for the official for being wrong calling the play correctly would be much more severe than the penalty for being wrong with a "no call" or going with the lesser foul.

I think as officials we need to strive for calling the obvious at all times during the game, and I think these calls in specific have hurt our profession all the way through. As these plays become more prevalent in high profile games, the mentality matriculates down to the lower levels. In my high school playoff game, a player or coach may come in with the attitude that because the game's close, he will be granted leeway to blatantly and obviously violate the rules of the game and have the expectation that it won't be called because of the score. Where does it end? I don't think anyone can deny that the "superstar mentality" has made its way down to the top high school programs, one only needs to look at the OJ Mayo mess to see that.

I think we as officials need to understand the concept of impact of fouls and fouls on specific players and the impact of different types of fouls on our games, but we can't lose sight of the need to always call obvious plays no matter what point in the game. We need to make sure fouls are there and obvious when we call them, but we can't lose sight of calling obvious plays simply because of the way that call might impact the game. I'm not saying go out and look for ticky tack stuff to call at the end of games, but just to have plays that the guy in the nosebleeds can call. Not having these obvious plays, be it in the NBA Finals, the NCAA Tourney, the high school playoffs, a regular varsity game or even a JV game not only hurts all officials, at all levels, but it also undermines the integrity of the game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

I think that the above posts are very relevant to what we've seen so far this year at the tournament. Here we have directive, reportedly from on high encouraging officials, strongly, to make safe calls. Of course, many of the calls that have been criticized so far in the tournament have been calls that can be deemed as "safe." The two main examples are the Oden intentional foul and the hanging on the rim in the Tennessee-Virginia game. In my opinion, both of those calls were incorrect, of course I am not nearly at the NCAA tournament level.

I've heard Dave Libbey speak, and one of the core things that he says is that you can call the exact same play different ways and be right both times. Libbey is referring to a play that we might want early in the game as a tempo setter, but not to call with the game on the line because it didn't have a direct impact on the play. I think this concept has been taken too far in these two cases. If we're not talking the last 30 seconds of a tight elimination game, but in the first half, in my opinion these are no brainer calls. The problem is that the penalty for the official for being wrong calling the play correctly would be much more severe than the penalty for being wrong with a "no call" or going with the lesser foul.

I think as officials we need to strive for calling the obvious at all times during the game, and I think these calls in specific have hurt our profession all the way through. As these plays become more prevalent in high profile games, the mentality matriculates down to the lower levels. In my high school playoff game, a player or coach may come in with the attitude that because the game's close, he will be granted leeway to blatantly and obviously violate the rules of the game and have the expectation that it won't be called because of the score. Where does it end? I don't think anyone can deny that the "superstar mentality" has made its way down to the top high school programs, one only needs to look at the OJ Mayo mess to see that.

I think we as officials need to understand the concept of impact of fouls and fouls on specific players and the impact of different types of fouls on our games, but we can't lose sight of the need to always call obvious plays no matter what point in the game. We need to make sure fouls are there and obvious when we call them, but we can't lose sight of calling obvious plays simply because of the way that call might impact the game. I'm not saying go out and look for ticky tack stuff to call at the end of games, but just to have plays that the guy in the nosebleeds can call. Not having these obvious plays, be it in the NBA Finals, the NCAA Tourney, the high school playoffs, a regular varsity game or even a JV game not only hurts all officials, at all levels, but it also undermines the integrity of the game.

Excellent post imo. I concur fully.

Every time I read "you should let the players decide the game", I feel like puking. That official is deciding the game instead by failing to have the intestinal fortitude to make the same call that he's been making the whole game up to that point.

[tomegun]

SMEngmann, I think your post is on point and I also concur fully. I would emplore people to read this post carefully. I think what this post says should be applied to all games during the whole year regardless of level.

I also like that you included some information from Dave Libbey who is one of the most mechanically sound (where 3-man mechanics are concerned) officials in the country.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Every time I read "you should let the players decide the game", I feel like puking.

The player who committed the intentional foul did give the players the opportunity to decide the game!

[boiseball]

greed is a strong word; certainly, any of us can get to a position where we feel compelled to make safer calls; we all face it; we want to work big games and it is our first year in a conference so we are slow to give a deserved T; it is a natural reaction that comes from a desire to succeed and not make waves

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I also like that you included some information from Dave Libbey who is one of the most mechanically sound (where 3-man mechanics are concerned) officials in the country.

Can we discuss his foul call at the end of regulation of the Pitt/VCU game?

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can we discuss his foul call at the end of regulation of the Pitt/VCU game?

We can discuss anything you would like.

Before we discuss it though...years ago Libbey had a tournament game - I think it was Duke/Maryland - and he made a bad call. He admitted his mistake openly, said it bothered him and he analyzed why he made the mistake. He isn't above making mistakes and he has admitted it in the past.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Can we discuss his foul call at the end of regulation of the Pitt/VCU game?

Sure, I watched a lot of that game. What was the play so you can jog my memory.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I also like that you included some information from Dave Libbey who is one of the most mechanically sound (where 3-man mechanics are concerned) officials in the country.

He is also one of the best clinicians I have ever had at a camp...he is funny, personable, willing to talk/help, etc...he can also be incredibly arrogant if anyone disagrees with him, but I just witnessed that, never did it!!

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

He is also one of the best clinicians I have ever had at a camp...he is funny, personable, willing to talk/help, etc...he can also be incredibly arrogant if anyone disagrees with him, but I just witnessed that, never did it!!

You are 100% right on all accounts and when I went to his camp I didn't disagree with him either.