Legal pick?

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My first thought was a possible intentional foul; when illegal contact (and this was) gets excessive (this might be), it can be an intentional regardless of "intent."

That would be a perfect example of bad game management.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

That would be a perfect example of bad game management.

Really? I couldn't tell from the camera angle if she extends her arms, or just leans her whole body. If she extends her arms like that on a blind screen, I don't see how you could argue against an intentional. It's well within the rules, IMO.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Really? I couldn't tell from the camera angle if she extends her arms, or just leans her whole body. If she extends her arms like that on a blind screen, I don't see how you could argue against an intentional. It's well within the rules, IMO.

I couldn’t be more adamant that you shouldn't call an intentional foul. When I watched it w/o the replays I thought illegal screen because she leaned into her a little bit. Certainly not much and certainly not enough to warrant an intentional. Yes it was a hard foul, but that’s what happens when players get picked off in the backcourt in most instances.

Game management thoughts.

We have a tie game at the 13:00 mark in the second half. If you whistle the offensive screener for an intentional their coach is going to be up your entire crew’s rear end the rest of the game. Any sort of action that’s even close to being intentional is going to be questioned. Also if this game stays close they are going to question any sort of blatant fouling at the end of the game.

Calling the illegal screen as a common foul is the way to go in this instance. No way should it even be considered intentional.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Game management thoughts.

We have a tie game at the 13:00 mark in the second half. If you whistle the offensive screener for an intentional their coach is going to be up your entire crew’s rear end the rest of the game. Any sort of action that’s even close to being intentional is going to be questioned. Also if this game stays close they are going to question any sort of blatant fouling at the end of the game.

Calling the illegal screen as a common foul is the way to go in this instance. No way should it even be considered intentional.

So, you're saying you don't make a particular call because you're afraid the coach might not like it and be on your case?

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, you're saying you don't make a particular call because you're afraid the coach might not like it and be on your case?

No I said I'm going to make the right call which is an illegal screen. Calling an intentional foul would be questionable at best and would more than likely lead to problems the rest of the game if you came up with both arms crossed.

It’s game management in the since that an intentional foul would lead to cluster #$%!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

No I said I'm going to make the right call which is an illegal screen. Calling an intentional foul would be questionable at best and would more than likely lead to problems the rest of the game if you came up with both arms crossed.

It’s game management in the since that an intentional foul would lead to cluster #$%!

I was only going by what you stated:

Originally Posted by mu4scott

If you whistle the offensive screener for an intentional their coach is going to be up your entire crew’s rear end the rest of the game. Any sort of action that’s even close to being intentional is going to be questioned. Also if this game stays close they are going to question any sort of blatant fouling at the end of the game.

If you would've said: "It's not an intentional foul because it doesn't meet the criteria of 4-19-3", I can live with that. But that isn't what you stated.

While I'm not necessarily arguing for the intentional call, I can see where it might be considered. Let's put it in a slightly different context: let's say green #12 is the ball handler and driving to the basket, and white #54 is the defender; with the exact same contact - would you still consider the contact, "certainly not much and certainly not enough to warrant an intentional"?

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I was only going by what you stated:


If you would've said: "It's not an intentional foul because it doesn't meet the criteria of 4-19-3", I can live with that. But that isn't what you stated.

While I'm not necessarily arguing for the intentional call, I can see where it might be considered. Let's put it in a slightly different context: let's say green #12 is the ball handler and driving to the basket, and white #54 is the defender; with the exact same contact - would you still consider the contact, "certainly not much and certainly not enough to warrant an intentional"?

I can't even see why you would consider this as intentional. It literally never entered into my mind until I read it further down in the thread.

IMHO calling this play an intentional foul would be a text book example of bad Game Management.

In your other situation I would have to see it, but I would certainly lead toward a common foul.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

No I said I'm going to make the right call which is an illegal screen. Calling an intentional foul would be questionable at best and would more than likely lead to problems the rest of the game if you came up with both arms crossed.

It’s game management in the since that an intentional foul would lead to cluster #$%!

I've got an intentional flagrant - attempt to injure. She's outta here so quickly that I'd even have someone go start the shower for her.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I've got an intentional flagrant - attempt to injure. She's outta here so quickly that I'd even have someone go start the shower for her.

That's what you have on this play?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

We have a tie game at the 13:00 mark in the second half. If you whistle the offensive screener for an intentional their coach is going to be up your entire crew’s rear end the rest of the game. Any sort of action that’s even close to being intentional is going to be questioned. Also if this game stays close they are going to question any sort of blatant fouling at the end of the game.

If you're worried about making coaches happy, you're in the wrong business. Who gives a damn if we're questioned about any call that we make? The only worry we should have is to get the call right!

Game management has absolutely NOTHING to do with worrying about how the coaches, players or fans are going to react to a call.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Game management has absolutely NOTHING to do with worrying about how the coaches, players or fans are going to react to a call.

And that right there would be my biggest gripe with the whole "game management" way of thinking. I can't even begin to count the number of times a supervisor or evaluator has used a line like" What do you think the coach thought of that call?" or "How do you think that looked to the blue coach?" - and then used that to lead into a discussion on their thoughts about "game management"...my response to those questions is -and will be - "I have no idea what they thought. It was (or wasn't) a foul and that's why I did (or didn't) blow the whistle."

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If you're worried about making coaches happy, you're in the wrong business. Who gives a damn if we're questioned about any call that we make? The only worry we should have is to get the call right!

Game management has absolutely NOTHING to do with worrying about how the coaches, players or fans are going to react to a call.

I'm all about getting the call right. The right call is a blocking foul and no intentional.

I could care less what the fans think and I certainly am not on that court to make coaches happy. I call the game to the best of my ability and portion of that is making sure that I have great Game Management.