Duke/So IL intentional Foul call

[JerzeeRef]

Maybe the L and C were blocked or screened ? Could the trail have been the more experienced of the crew and decided to take charge, plus he had a better angel of the push into the basket support.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in HS hard fouls like this play are to be considered intentional.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by JerzeeRef

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in HS hard fouls like this play are to be considered intentional.

Ok.

4-19-3
Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act.

[tjones1]

I thought it was a clean play. Then again, I attend Southern so I might be biased.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I thought it was a clean play. Then again, I attend Southern so I might be biased.

for Coach Painter. I'm a Boilermaker, graduated 05/98. Wasn't to sure about him, but damn can that guy recruit so far.

[muxbule]

I just watched it and IMO it was a foul for sure. (push in the back) How the lead had nothing, I'm not quite sure. Where the C was. I'm not sure. How the T comes in with his call after seeing the direction coach K took to yell at him is almost unimaginable. I really believe this looked worse and turned out worse because of the angle of the shooter and the defender heading to the bucket. Straight down the lane. Defender has no where to go but into the base of the bucket standard.
Would anyone be a little pissed at the T if you were the L???

[Lotto]

I just looked at the replay on this. It looked as though the L might have gotten a little ahead of the play and possibly couldn't see the push in the back. It also looks as though although Boyle's right arm is making a legitimate play on the ball, he places his left arm into Singler's back and extends it while Singler is in the air, which does, IMHO, make this an intentional foul.

[Nevadaref]

There was contact on the play. Based upon the NCAA rules and recent directives and POEs there is support for calling any of the three: normal personal foul, intentional personal foul, or flagrant personal foul. My opinion is that it was better to have a whistle on this play than not, but I will not question the judgment of the officials working the contest. I think that they could have gotten away with not having a foul on this play with only some grief, but not a blow-up, from Coach K as the contact wasn't hard, although the Duke player fell hard, but fortunately wasn't hurt. The problem was that a North Carolina player suffered a broken arm/wrist just the day before on a similar play. So again a whistle on this silly challenge from behind when clearly beaten and out of position makes more sense to me.

I will also comment that in my opinion a play such as this must be called by the Lead and Center without any involvement whatsoever from the Trail. The Lead may have gotten himself into a spot with a poor angle by being too close to the action, but the C had a perfect look. The Trail needs to stay the heck out of it and trust his partners to handle their business. To do otherwise undermines the crew. This wasn't a must get that grandma in the 47th row could see.

As either the Lead or C, I would be much displeased with the Trail for coming and putting a whistle on this. It gives the perception that the official is making a call to please a coach. I'm never in favor of that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by muxbule

I just watched it and IMO it was a foul for sure. (push in the back) How the lead had nothing, I'm not quite sure...

The L had nothing b/c the only contact that occurred was with B1's left forearm into the left portion of A1's back. The L was on the right side of A1 and B1 and had no way to see that contact. I did not even see that contact until the 3rd replay.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

According to ESPN.com: Officials: Jamie Luckie ,Roger Ayers ,Dwayne Gladden

I've heard of Jamie Luckie, and I think Ayers is the '70s radical that Obama hangs around with, but I don't know who Gladden is.

All three are NCAA tournament officials and I'm pretty sure their assignment to last night's game was through the ACC.

[grunewar]

As do many plays of this nature (IMO) it just looked/ended up worse than it really was.

When you have two very large, athletic, individuals running at a good clip with A's intent to slam it down and B's intent to block it.....and they go up high at that speed, with their heads near the bottom of the backboard and there is virtually no place to land.....neither player is gonna "stick the landing."

And to say B had his hand in A's back - heck, they're both pretty much trying to keep their balance and not end up in a heap.....which didn't work too well.

I'm just happy this apparently didn't end with any injuries.

[zebraman]

I just saw the play. If I was the lead, I would thank the trail after the game. And I would beat myself up for missing it. The player gets forearmed and ends up running into the base of the basket. If someone doesn't whistle that play, you have a mess on your hands. As hard as the guy hit the basket and went down, I like the upgrade to intentional too.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I just saw the play. If I was the lead, I would thank the trail after the game. And I would beat myself up for missing it. The player gets forearmed and ends up running into the base of the basket. If someone doesn't whistle that play, you have a mess on your hands. As hard as the guy hit the basket and went down, I like the upgrade to intentional too.

The Lead could not see the contact from his angle.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I just saw the play. If I was the lead, I would thank the trail after the game. And I would beat myself up for missing it. The player gets forearmed and ends up running into the base of the basket. If someone doesn't whistle that play, you have a mess on your hands. As hard as the guy hit the basket and went down, I like the upgrade to intentional too.

Having seen the highlight of the play, I agree a whistle was in order. The L wasn't in great position, but could have had it.

That said, I see very little reason for an intentional. Running into the support is what made the play look violent. Running into the support is not a good rationale for calling the intentional.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I just saw the play. If I was the lead, I would thank the trail after the game. And I would beat myself up for missing it. The player gets forearmed and ends up running into the base of the basket. If someone doesn't whistle that play, you have a mess on your hands. As hard as the guy hit the basket and went down, I like the upgrade to intentional too.

IMHO, the official, if any, that should be thanking the Trail is the Center. The Lead is not going to see that, and I don't begrudge him for not having a whistle on this play. The C is looking straight through the play and is the only official out there with any look in regards to the contact that was made on this play.

As far as the severity, again IMHO it looked worse that it was just from the standpoint the kids came crashing down onto the support. If the ever was a case for a game management intentional foul, no matter ones philosophy, here is an example for one in the affirmative.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I just saw the play. If I was the lead, I would thank the trail after the game. And I would beat myself up for missing it. The player gets forearmed and ends up running into the base of the basket. If someone doesn't whistle that play, you have a mess on your hands. As hard as the guy hit the basket and went down, I like the upgrade to intentional too.

Saved me the typing..........

An airborne shooter is like a pinata out there.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Ok.

4-19-3
Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act.

High school rule:
4-19-3 "A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent."

The very next sentence after your quote.

Not sure if NCAA has the same wording.