The Official Forum
Page 4 of 5 « First 23 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   We don't need no stinkin' new rules - or do we? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/34732-we-dont-need-no-stinkin-new-rules-do-we.html)

Mark Padgett Sun May 20, 2007 01:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
1) Yup, and that's why they question every single intentional foul usually. And all you have to do is tell them that the foul illegally took an advantage away from their opponent.
Isn't that what every contact foul does, intentional or not? :confused:

JRutledge Sun May 20, 2007 02:00pm
JR,

We are just discussing what our opinion is on what type of language should be used. I do not recall that any current official on this site is having trouble understanding the current rule. I think we would just like to see a change in the language similar to the NBA classifications (I am not for the specific Flagrant 1 language for HS or NCAA games) to change the language. I just think "intentional" is confusing to most casual observers including coaches and players.

Peace

Camron Rust Sun May 20, 2007 02:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Disagree completely. There's absolutely no need to change what we're using now. The biggest problem is that some people, including some officials, just don't understand the present terminology being used. There's only one element needed for an intentional foul and it's been defined the same way in the rules forever to include that single element. A foul is deemed intentional if it neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Period. All you are doing now is talking about the different ways that somebody can do exactly that--illegally take away an opponent's obvious advantage. If you break it down further, as you suggest, then imo all you're gonna do is just confuse everybody further also. Whether it's excessive contact, reaching out and grabbing an arm or just giving a tug on the shirt, all of these situations are doing the exact same thing that is already defined in the rule book as being an intentional foul-- illegally taking an obvious advantage away from another player. That makes them all intentional fouls under the current rule book definition. All adding further language would do is just further confuse people.

You and the others are overthinking this to death imo.
The problem with that view is that excessive contact may not neutralize ANY advantage, obvious or not. It may simply be a play that has absolutely bo bearing on advantage but is just too rough.

Jurassic Referee Sun May 20, 2007 02:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
The problem with that view is that excessive contact may not neutralize ANY advantage, obvious or not. <font color = red>It may simply be a play that has absolutely no bearing on advantage but is just too rough.</font>
Which is exactly my point......

The current NFHS intentional foul language also states "A foul shall also be ruled intentional <b>if while playing the ball</b> a player causes <b>excessive</b> contact with an opponent".

The current language in R4-19-3 already covers all of the same situations that people want to add new language to cover, including your example above. Instead of saying the exact same thing in a different way, just use what we've already got.

Mark Dexter Sun May 20, 2007 02:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
To Mark Dexter: I believe that this mechanic was introduced about twelve to fifteen years ago. It was wrong of me to assume that our local board mechanic was also a statewide mechanic. For the past several years, anytime our local board varies from any official NFHS or IAABO guidelines, our interpreters have preceeded their explanations with something like "At XXXXday's meeting, all the Connecticut interpreters have decided to ...". Maybe we weren't acting in such a uniform manner back then. Sorry.
Well - 12 to 15 years ago, I was in elementary school. It's quite possible that it was introduced state-wide back then and has simply fallen out of favor in my neck of the woods.

JRutledge Sun May 20, 2007 02:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Which is exactly my point......

The current NFHS intentional foul language also states "A foul shall also be ruled intentional <b>if while playing the ball</b> a player causes <b>excessive</b> contact with an opponent".

The current language in R4-19-3 already covers all of the same situations that people want to add new language to cover, including your example above. Instead of saying the exact same thing in a different way, just use what we've already got.
Excessive contact and intentional contact is not quite the same thing to the average person. No one is suggesting change anything other than the language. We know what the rule states, but that does not make it any less confusing. For people who are around the game. Once again usually this is a problem for coaches and players and causes undo conflict about a simple rule. Change the language and it might take away that confusion in my opinion.

Peace

Mark Padgett Sun May 20, 2007 05:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
It may simply be a play that has absolutely bo bearing on advantage
Is that "Bo Jackson" or "Bo Derek" bearing? I hope it's the latter. She can take advantage of me anytime, intentional or not. In fact, flagrant would be nice. :cool:

bob jenkins Mon May 21, 2007 07:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Is that "Bo Jackson" or "Bo Derek" bearing?
I'd hope it would be Bo Derek baring.

Camron Rust Mon May 21, 2007 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Which is exactly my point......

The current NFHS intentional foul language also states "A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent".

The current language in R4-19-3 already covers all of the same situations that people want to add new language to cover, including your example above. Instead of saying the exact same thing in a different way, just use what we've already got.
And that is actually the point!

We (referees...at least most) know what the rule really says. But the name of the foul is a misnomer. The foul you highlighted above has nothing to do with intent....hence "intentioal foul" is logicially the wrong name for it. All that is being suggested is changing or spliting the name so that its name matches the act.

chartrusepengui Mon May 21, 2007 12:05pm
a "flagrant foul" level one is also not a name befitting an intentional foul where the intent is obvious. JMO but the point you make can be argued both ways. Right? Now splitting the name ie adding flagrant foul level one and keeping the intentional foul might actually be the way to go to get the officials to call these fouls more consistently.

Camron Rust Mon May 21, 2007 02:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chartrusepengui
a "flagrant foul" level one is also not a name befitting an intentional foul where the intent is obvious. JMO but the point you make can be argued both ways. Right? Now splitting the name ie adding flagrant foul level one and keeping the intentional foul might actually be the way to go to get the officials to call these fouls more consistently.
Not really splitting hairs because "intentional" clearly implies that there is intent as part of the foul. Flagrant doesn't. It only implies that the foul is something beyond normal.

chartrusepengui Mon May 21, 2007 02:18pm
Every foul is "something beyond normal". Definition of flagrant is as follows: fla|grant «FLAY gruhnt», adjective.
glaringly offensive; notorious; outrageous; scandalous: a flagrant crime. You’re an old flagrant heathen (John Millington Synge).
glaring: a flagrant error. I still content that not all "intentional" fouls are flagrant - nor shoud they be described that way. As has been stated before, not all flagrant fouls are intentional either.

JRutledge Mon May 21, 2007 02:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chartrusepengui
Every foul is "something beyond normal". Definition of flagrant is as follows: fla|grant «FLAY gruhnt», adjective.
glaringly offensive; notorious; outrageous; scandalous: a flagrant crime. You’re an old flagrant heathen (John Millington Synge).
glaring: a flagrant error. I still content that not all "intentional" fouls are flagrant - nor shoud they be described that way. As has been stated before, not all flagrant fouls are intentional either.
The use of flagrant in the context of fouls would be more appropriate than using the word intentional to describe a foul. If excessive contact can be apart of an intentional foul, it can be outrageous and scandalous in nature. Why not just call a foul "excessive contact?"

Peace

Jurassic Referee Mon May 21, 2007 02:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chartrusepengui
Every foul is "something beyond normal". Definition of flagrant is as follows: fla|grant «FLAY gruhnt», adjective.
glaringly offensive; notorious; outrageous; scandalous: a flagrant crime. You’re an old flagrant heathen (John Millington Synge).
glaring: a flagrant error. I still content that not all "intentional" fouls are flagrant - nor shoud they be described that way. As has been stated before, not all flagrant fouls are intentional either.
You might be better off learning the rule book definitions and what they mean, and forget completely about what the dictionary states. All you're doing is confusing yourself.

Intentional fouls are <b>never</b> flagrant fouls, by NFHS and NCAA rules definition. Ever. Similarly, flagrant fouls are <b>never</b> intentional fouls either. The "act" itself may be either intentional or not in nature in both types of fouls, but that is not a criteria that is needed for either.

chartrusepengui Mon May 21, 2007 03:10pm
I'm not the one confused here. I agree that intentional fouls are never flagrant fouls and that is why we cannot change the terminology. However - intentional fouls can appear to be flagrant. This argument is the same as those earlier that argue about the "intent" of a foul. Some flagrant fouls can appear to be "intentional", yet by rule cannot be. How is changing terminology going to solve anything? If you say that by changing terminology more officials are going to "make the call" then they are the ones confused. Are you one of those officials? I'm not - I have no problem making the calls and seeing the difference between them. My whole point is that changing the terminology will not change how officials make the call.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25am.
Page 4 of 5 « First 23 4 5
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1