UNC vs VT - Bilas - Eliminate Intentional Fouls?

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

He is one of the better TV guys. He makes an effort to properly explain what is going on. However, he does have some gaps in his rules knowledge. For example, some past situations have demonstrated that he is clueless about the BI and GT rules.

I was listening to this as well. I disagree with the part about eliminating the rule, but I do agree that we need to call this more.

[BBall_Junkie]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, Bilas said that the problem with intentional fouls is that officials have to judge intent. He clearly doesn't understand the rule. He thinks that the name of the foul dictates the way that it is called. Many of us have previously stated that the name of this type of foul should be changed as it doesn't reflect the meaning of the ruleswriters.

His partner, Mike Patrick, corrected him by saying that intentional fouls should be called when players don't make a play for the ball. Bilas did agree with that comment.

Also note that even if the player does make a play on the ball, a foul can still be intentional if the contact is deemed excessive by the official. 4-19-3

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Bilas does realize that flagrant fouls are subjective, too, right?

Aren't all fouls subjective in some sense?

[mick]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Aren't all fouls subjective in some sense?

And aren't many, many fouls intentional in some sense?

[tballump]

The original post said the player was grabbed from behind. There was nothing said about the player making a play on the ball. How would you "grab" a guy from behind and be making a play on the ball. If that is possible, that was not how the OP was stated. As the OP was stated without any qualifiers, this would be intentional.
Who else saw the play that was posted. Was the player grabbed from behind and if so, why was the the call not intentional? I do not care what the announcer said. If it should have been intentional, why was it not called intentional. Somebody worried about their schedule being taken away or getting a bad review. If it was not intentional then what was worded improperly on the OP.
Thanks for the help.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tballump

Somebody worried about their schedule being taken away or getting a bad review. If it was not intentional then what was worded improperly on the OP.
Thanks for the help.

At the college level?

If the powers that be do not like the call (no matter what we say here) that is where assignments could be taken away or future assignments could be in jeopardy.

I did not see the play, but someone reviewed the play and made an evaluation on some level. And it is not about not making the call at that level, it is about getting the call right. Because if they do not get the call right, that is what the officials will have to worry about.

Peace

[tballump]

So, guys live in fear of having your assignments taken away or having future assignments taken away every game. D1 officials just live in fear every game then, of the possibly having to enforce certain situations that might upset the coach. That's really a great way to officiate. And I suppose officials are proud of themselves for this. What does this say about officiating. Sell your soul to the devil. Absolutely no intestinal fortitude. What does this say to people wanting to get into officiating?

Even that old Referee piece on Ted Valentine was a joke. Neither Ted nor anyone else had the fortitude to take care of the situation. And these guys are looked on like God's. Why. The first guy calls the T and then another guy calls the next one. Sure, who wants to call the 2nd one that gets the coach ejected. Everyone rushes to call the 1st one and then question his partner's intestinal fortitude for not calling the 2nd one, even though, if that is the way they handle it (the no intestinal fortitude way) then the 2nd one should be given by the other partners. However, it should "all" be taken care of by oneself when it was that bad and obvious from the article.

Thanks JR for having the intestinal fortitude for telling it like it is at the college level. Unfortunately, it looks to me like that has filtered down to the lower levels as well. I do not see how anyone can have any self-respect or be respected by others when they cannot call intentional fouls when they occur or enforce bench decorum as it should be enforced.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tballump

So, guys live in fear of having your assignments taken away or having future assignments taken away every game. D1 officials just live in fear every game then, of the possibly having to enforce certain situations that might upset the coach.

It has nothing to do with upsetting the coach.

It has everything to do with calling the game the way the "powers" (and there are more than one) want it to be called. The rule book language is (and always (?) ) has been fuzzy.

And, I didn't see the play, but there's not enough in the description to allow me to make the determination on whether this should be an intentional or a common foul.