UNC vs VT - Bilas - Eliminate Intentional Fouls?

[grunewar]

Anyone see the end of the UNC/Va Tech game?

Game winding down, ~ 30 seconds left. UNC up by 5. UNC Guard dribbling in the backcourt and is grabbed from behind.

Bilas' partner says, that's got to be an intentional foul.....but, they didn't call it. The officials are so subjective on this......

Bilas then says due to the subjectivity of the intentional foul call, they should do away with intentional fouls altogether and just have personal, flagrant, and technicals.

Discussion ensues.......

I know we've discussed intentionals before - two-handed pushes, uniform grabs, bear hugs, etc......any thoughts on doing away with it totally or is this just another Bilasism?

[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.

[grunewar]

Thanks for the elaboration Nevada.

[zeedonk]

I was watching too and I thought Bilas also went on to say the fouls should be personal, technical or flagrant and that's it.

Seems to me that this would be a major problem at the HS level. If the intentional is jettisoned, we are left with a personal or flagrant. If we go flagrant (since we don't have intentional anymore) my knee jerk reaction is that the 2 game suspension is far harsher a penalty than is needed (at least in NJ a flagrant ejection gets you a 2 game sit-down).

Of course, the flip side is that maybe the coaches will actually teach how to foul in game ending situations and the players will adjust, just the same as they do (or should) when we call the hand check and travel early and consistently... 'cause if they don't adjust, I bet it only takes one 2 game suspension for the lesson to be learned.

Can't speak for the NCAA/Div 1 level, since I won't be there until next year (my 3rd season), but it also seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

Overall, I can't see a real good reason to get rid of the intentional foul altogether... I kind of like it, I call it, and it seems to settle things down when I do call it...


One vote against the Bilas Initiative! (And I like listening to Jay, says some interesting things)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by zeedonk

(And I like listening to Jay, says some interesting things)

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.

[mutantducky]

east COAST bias too.
Sorry. had to put it out there. just had a rush of March Madness. still too early

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

In FIBA they are called unsportsmanlike fouls, which I think is a more accurate label for them.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

The "bear hug" is one of those "end of game" fouls that is quite common, arguably NOT a play for the ball, an accepted practice, and many times not called intentional.

The two-handed push from behind and uniform grab are more common intentional fouls that are called more consistently.

[mbyron]

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.

Tim Brando's been doing it for 30 years, and referred to an offensive BI call the other night (player hanging from rim as the ball is in the cylinder) as offensive goaltending.

I think that some might do this on purpose. Fans have never heard of basket interference. Of course, that could be corrected if they started talking about it...

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Tim Brando's been doing it for 30 years, and referred to an offensive BI call the other night (player hanging from rim as the ball is in the cylinder) as offensive goaltending.

I think that some might do this on purpose. Fans have never heard of basket interference. Of course, that could be corrected if they started talking about it...

*pinch* *pinch*

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

east COAST bias too.
Sorry. had to put it out there. just had a rush of March Madness. still too early

Probably because the best basketball is played in the eastern half of the country.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Probably because the best basketball is played in the eastern half of the country.

Is this the appropriate place to drop the Jon Diebler reference?

[BktBallRef]

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.

For example, Jeff Allen made a legal post move by stepping with his non-pivot, lifting his pivot and shooting before returning to the floor. Bilas said it was traveling.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Tim Brando's been doing it for 30 years, and referred to an offensive BI call the other night (player hanging from rim as the ball is in the cylinder) as offensive goaltending.

That reminds me. Thursday night A1 (big, strong, long arms) gets ball on baseline. Goes strong to the basket to dunk. B1 fouls him before A1's reaches the rim. Ball comes loose, A1 hangs on the rim, while A1 has ring collapsed the ball lands on back iron then falls through the basket. Lead handled everything: got foul, waved off basket, immediately indicated 2 shots.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Bilas then says due to the subjectivity of the intentional foul call, they should do away with intentional fouls altogether and just have personal, flagrant, and technicals.

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