UNC vs VT - Bilas - Eliminate Intentional Fouls?
 

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?

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.

Thanks for the elaboration Nevada.

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)

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.

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

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

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.

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*

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

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

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. :o

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.

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

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.

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

Aren't all fouls subjective in some sense?

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

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.

At the college level? :confused:

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

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.

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.