Cal/UCLA 7-point play

[skippyflipjack]

Non-ref here hoping for some authoritative information. I was at the Cal game this past weekend and late in the 1st half a call was made that would eventually result in 7 points for UCLA. I think it was a fair call but nearly every other Cal fan disagrees.

Cal's Theo Robertson doubles the ball and loses his man, who heads towards the basket to receive the pass and easy score. Robertson can't make up the distance so grabs the player's shoulder as he goes up for the layup. Ref underneath the basket whistles the intentional foul as the ball falls through the hoop. Player makes both free throws and UCLA hits a 3 on the ensuing possession, netting them 7 points total.

ESPN was doing the game. Digger Phelps called "intentional!" immediately, while Jay Bilas thought it was "technically" an intentional foul but that he doesn't like the rule itself; he thinks there should just be flagrant or no-call, since "intent" is hard to ascertain. (Cal fans agreed, perhaps unaware that a flagrant would have meant Theo's ejection.) Bobby Knight thinks it's an awful call, but I think his reasoning is that an intentional personal foul should be before the shot. "I don't think you can call an intentional foul on a guy who gets fouled going to the bucket and makes the bucket," he said; I'm not sure if he meant that a ref isn't allowed or that they shouldn't in good conscience.

Here's video; the foul is shown in replay at 1:30. Personally, even though it killed the Bears I think it was good refereeing. The ref made the "intentional" signal without hesitating, and it's not like anyone had to judge Theo's "intent" -- he grabbed the guy by the shoulder and was touching the player w/ his other hand.

That said, I've read the NCAA rule but don't have the experience to know the intent of the rule regarding grabbing a player to prevent a score. Was this correctly applied, or is the rule mainly intended to govern action up the court where there's no chance of a shot? Should the rule be amended so an intentional personal followed by a make results in 1 free throw plus the ball? Should the ref have waited a moment and let the basket result inform his decision? Would you have made this call?

Thanks for any enlightenment...

[Rich]

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

Non-ref here hoping for some authoritative information. I was at the Cal game this past weekend and late in the 1st half a call was made that would eventually result in 7 points for UCLA. I think it was a fair call but nearly every other Cal fan disagrees.

Cal's Theo Robertson doubles the ball and loses his man, who heads towards the basket to receive the pass and easy score. Robertson can't make up the distance so grabs the player's shoulder as he goes up for the layup. Ref underneath the basket whistles the intentional foul as the ball falls through the hoop. Player makes both free throws and UCLA hits a 3 on the ensuing possession, netting them 7 points total.

ESPN was doing the game. Digger Phelps called "intentional!" immediately, while Jay Bilas thought it was "technically" an intentional foul but that he doesn't like the rule itself; he thinks there should just be flagrant or no-call, since "intent" is hard to ascertain. (Cal fans agreed, perhaps unaware that a flagrant would have meant Theo's ejection.) Bobby Knight thinks it's an awful call, but I think his reasoning is that an intentional personal foul should be before the shot. "I don't think you can call an intentional foul on a guy who gets fouled going to the bucket and makes the bucket," he said; I'm not sure if he meant that a ref isn't allowed or that they shouldn't in good conscience.

Here's video; the foul is shown in replay at 1:30. Personally, even though it killed the Bears I think it was good refereeing. The ref made the "intentional" signal without hesitating, and it's not like anyone had to judge Theo's "intent" -- he grabbed the guy by the shoulder and was touching the player w/ his other hand.

That said, I've read the NCAA rule but don't have the experience to know the intent of the rule regarding grabbing a player to prevent a score. Was this correctly applied, or is the rule mainly intended to govern action up the court where there's no chance of a shot? Should the rule be amended so an intentional personal followed by a make results in 1 free throw plus the ball? Should the ref have waited a moment and let the basket result inform his decision? Would you have made this call?

Thanks for any enlightenment...

I did make this call in a big area boys HS game earlier this season. Basket, 2 free throws, and possession. They didn't convert on the possession, though.

The announcers should simply shut up, but they won't.

Don't grab the guy and it won't get called, right?

[grunewar]

Lions, and Tigers. and Bears, Oh my......

Phelps, and Bilas, and Knight, Oh my......

[WreckRef]

Isn't this type of foul exactly what the Intentional Foul rule was designed to try to prevent? A player not making a play on the ball? Seems text book to me although I don't know what the NCAA book says.

On a side not, I can't stand most commentators but I think ex-coach commentators are the worst. They think they know the rules and when they explain something they talk as if they do know the rule when they do not.

My only exception is Jeff Van Gundy because he admits he doesn't know the rules and makes jokes about it.

[mj]

Knight says the fact that UCLA got the ball back is just a crime. I wonder if he would've felt the same way if the call went his way while he was coaching?

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

Non-ref here hoping for some authoritative information. I was at the Cal game this past weekend and late in the 1st half a call was made that would eventually result in 7 points for UCLA. I think it was a fair call but nearly every other Cal fan disagrees.

Cal's Theo Robertson doubles the ball and loses his man, who heads towards the basket to receive the pass and easy score. Robertson can't make up the distance so grabs the player's shoulder as he goes up for the layup. Ref underneath the basket whistles the intentional foul as the ball falls through the hoop. Player makes both free throws and UCLA hits a 3 on the ensuing possession, netting them 7 points total.

Good summary of the situation!

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

ESPN was doing the game. Digger Phelps called "intentional!" immediately,

Announcers don't have a clue (with the possible exception of Clark Kellogg, who has at least a clue or two, even if he's not always right)

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

while Jay Bilas thought it was "technically" an intentional foul but that he doesn't like the rule itself; he thinks there should just be flagrant or no-call, since "intent" is hard to ascertain.

See above.

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

(Cal fans agreed, perhaps unaware that a flagrant would have meant Theo's ejection.) Bobby Knight thinks it's an awful call, but I think his reasoning is that an intentional personal foul should be before the shot.

Bobby Knight is so far out to lunch, he owns a Subway franchise!

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

"I don't think you can call an intentional foul on a guy who gets fouled going to the bucket and makes the bucket," he said; I'm not sure if he meant that a ref isn't allowed or that they shouldn't in good conscience.

What he means is, "I refuse to understand or even listen to anyone who trys to explain the rules to me. I just don't care what's real, I live in my own dream world."

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

Here's video; the foul is shown in replay at 1:30. Personally, even though it killed the Bears I think it was good refereeing. The ref made the "intentional" signal without hesitating, and it's not like anyone had to judge Theo's "intent" -- he grabbed the guy by the shoulder and was touching the player w/ his other hand.

You are absolutely right, it was excellent refereeing. Play was pretty much text-book intentional foul.

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

That said, I've read the NCAA rule but don't have the experience to know the intent of the rule regarding grabbing a player to prevent a score. Was this correctly applied, or is the rule mainly intended to govern action up the court where there's no chance of a shot? Should the rule be amended so an intentional personal followed by a make results in 1 free throw plus the ball? Should the ref have waited a moment and let the basket result inform his decision? Would you have made this call?

The "intentional" foul is one of two things, either (1) a foul that "isn't a basketball play" and is intended to take away a clear and legal advantage by the opponent (nearly always the team with the ball), or (b) it's an excessively rough foul. At the NCAA level, a play has to be pretty much a full-out body block at 100 mph to qualify for the second definition. The first definition is generally what's used -- and the most misunderstood. "Intentional" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intention. It's okay to call an intentional foul in certain situations where the foul-er has no intenion of fouling, just gets sort of frustrated or carried away. The play you cite is a classic example. Doesn't matter what the foul-er intended (or what he was thinking). What he did WAS NOT a basketball play. It's really that simple.

Should the rule be amended so an intentional personal followed by a make results in 1 free throw plus the ball? Should the ref have waited a moment and let the basket result inform his decision? Would you have made this call?

I like the rule just the way it is. It penalizes enough to make the play not worth it. No the ref should not have waited, imo. and, yes, I would have made this call. Very, very easy.

[mutantducky]

I watched the second half of that game. At first it was like, good call and then they kept whining about it. Knight and Bilas were just repeating the same thing over and over and sounding rather pathetic because it clearly was an intentional foul. It did hurt Cal a lot but they gave up some big plays late in the game to stop their comeback.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by skippyflipjack

Non-ref here hoping for some authoritative information. I was at the Cal game this past weekend and late in the 1st half a call was made that would eventually result in 7 points for UCLA. I think it was a fair call but nearly every other Cal fan disagrees.

Cal's Theo Robertson doubles the ball and loses his man, who heads towards the basket to receive the pass and easy score. Robertson can't make up the distance so grabs the player's shoulder as he goes up for the layup. Ref underneath the basket whistles the intentional foul as the ball falls through the hoop. Player makes both free throws and UCLA hits a 3 on the ensuing possession, netting them 7 points total.

ESPN was doing the game. Digger Phelps called "intentional!" immediately, while Jay Bilas thought it was "technically" an intentional foul but that he doesn't like the rule itself; he thinks there should just be flagrant or no-call, since "intent" is hard to ascertain. (Cal fans agreed, perhaps unaware that a flagrant would have meant Theo's ejection.) Bobby Knight thinks it's an awful call, but I think his reasoning is that an intentional personal foul should be before the shot. "I don't think you can call an intentional foul on a guy who gets fouled going to the bucket and makes the bucket," he said; I'm not sure if he meant that a ref isn't allowed or that they shouldn't in good conscience.

Here's video; the foul is shown in replay at 1:30. Personally, even though it killed the Bears I think it was good refereeing. The ref made the "intentional" signal without hesitating, and it's not like anyone had to judge Theo's "intent" -- he grabbed the guy by the shoulder and was touching the player w/ his other hand.

That said, I've read the NCAA rule but don't have the experience to know the intent of the rule regarding grabbing a player to prevent a score. Was this correctly applied, or is the rule mainly intended to govern action up the court where there's no chance of a shot? Should the rule be amended so an intentional personal followed by a make results in 1 free throw plus the ball? Should the ref have waited a moment and let the basket result inform his decision? Would you have made this call?

Thanks for any enlightenment...

I do not have to watch the play because your description of the play makes it easy to make the call: intentional personal foul.


About 10 years ago I had a boys' H.S. jr. varsity game where the home team fought back from a 20+ point half-time deficiet to have the ball with 20 seconds left and down by 8 points. H1 puts up a 3 pt attempt which touches but nothing but net, just after H1 releases the ball, V1 hammers H1 in the stomach with his should like he is trying to take out a wide receiver. IPF on V1. H1 makes both free throws and then H1 inbounds the ball to H2 who is wide open under Team H's basket, and he makes the layup to tie the ball game.

MTD, Sr.

[Adam]

I would like to congratulate the OP for a very concise recap, along with acknowledging there may be more to the rules than he can know.

[zm1283]

Knight saying that the foul should be either flagrant or a no-call shows how ignorant he is. Why can't it be a common foul?

He's also an idiot when he says you shouldn't be able to call an intentional foul when the shooter makes the basket. So we're supposed to penalize the shooter (Who gets fouled intentionally) and not call this because it's somehow too severe? I used to like him as a coach, but he's a moron.

Edit: Bilas echos Knight's "flagrant or no-call" thing. So they favor ejecting a player for a foul on a shooter?

The intentional foul is one of the best things in the rules as they stand now.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would like to congratulate the OP for a very concise recap, along with acknowledging there may be more to the rules than he can know.

Concur.

Could it be that skippyflipjack is related to the infamous skippy weaselpants?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would like to congratulate the OP for a very concise recap, along with acknowledging there may be more to the rules than he can know.

Disagree. It might be more than he knew when he posted, but he's learning it. Get him some stripes and a whistle and we'll see how much he can know!

But I agree that it's refreshing to have someone post a genuine question, rather than coming here to indulge in fan-boy whinging.

[refguy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not have to watch the play because your description of the play makes it easy to make the call: intentional personal foul.


About 10 years ago I had a boys' H.S. jr. varsity game where the home team fought back from a 20+ point half-time deficiet to have the ball with 20 seconds left and down by 8 points. H1 puts up a 3 pt attempt which touches but nothing but net, just after H1 releases the ball, V1 hammers H1 in the stomach with his should like he is trying to take out a wide receiver. IPF on V1. H1 makes both free throws and then H1 inbounds the ball to H2 who is wide open under Team H's basket, and he makes the layup to tie the ball game.

MTD, Sr.

Hey Mark. Can you add that up again for me? 8 point deficit:
Made 3 pointer - 5 point deficit
2 Free Throws - 3 point deficit
Made Layup - Tie Ballgame?
Am I missing something here?

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I would like to congratulate the OP for a very concise recap, along with acknowledging there may be more to the rules than he can know.

I think skippy (the OP) should consider a hobby in officiating

-Josh

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not have to watch the play because your description of the play makes it easy to make the call: intentional personal foul.


About 10 years ago I had a boys' H.S. jr. varsity game where the home team fought back from a 20+ point half-time deficiet to have the ball with 20 seconds left and down by 8 points. H1 puts up a 3 pt attempt which touches but nothing but net, just after H1 releases the ball, V1 hammers H1 in the stomach with his should like he is trying to take out a wide receiver. IPF on V1. H1 makes both free throws and then H1 inbounds the ball to H2 who is wide open under Team H's basket, and he makes the layup to tie the ball game.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, Sr.: Good at officiating, not so good at math.