Bulls vs Celtics

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.

That philosophy is why I've sympathized Shaq from time-to-time. Opponents beat the sh!t out of him all the time when he was in his prime but when he got tired of it and put a hard foul on someone else it became a federal case.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.

Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

[bradfordwilkins]

Rondo's was certainly a borderline Fragrant 1 -- watching the video on YouTube it certainly looks like the contact was "unnecessary" (the definition of a Flagrant 1 at the Pro Level). The thing is, retroactively there is no value in upgrading it to a Flagrant 1 (no fines until flagrant 2)... and you're certainly not going to suspend someone for a Flagrant 1.

Likewise, Dwight should've been ejected on the spot for an elbow that makes contact above the shoulder, Flagrant 2. I believe the reason he is being suspended is because he was not ejected. If he gets ejected in the game, I think he plays Game 6.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by NBA rules

Section IV—Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player,
with or without the ball, is interpreted
to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul—
penalty (1) will be assessed.

So why is every "Hack-a-Shaq" foul not a flagrant I?

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So why is every "Hack-a-Shaq" foul not a flagrant I?

Have you tried to guard Shaq? Fouling him to send him to the free-throw line seems necessary to me! lol :-P

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

I agree, I'll preface by saying I'm a bulls fan, yet it was apparent Rondo went for his face.

JR would have called it "taking care of bidness"

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

I got to watch the play in its entirety and yeah I can see that being a flagrant 1 and I can also see the wade play being a common foul. Refs miss plays we all know this. They were both 2 plays with a story behind them both.

Do you think within the context of the game a Flagrant 1 should have been assessed on Rondo?

Do you think within the context of the game where Wade had just been fouled hard 2 plays previous with an altercation occurring immediately after, that there should or shouldn't have been a flagrant 1 assessed?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I got to watch the play in its entirety and yeah I can see that being a flagrant 1 and I can also see the wade play being a common foul. Refs miss plays we all know this. They were both 2 plays with a story behind them both.

Terrible thought process for officiating. Obviously more of that pro philosophy garbage. What happened to your earlier comment about officials judging the action and not the intent? The "story" behind the play would fall into that.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Do you think within the context of the game a Flagrant 1 should have been assessed on Rondo?

Yep, real officials don't care what the "context" of the game is. They simply get the play right. 1st Q or 4th Q, that's more than a common foul.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Do you think within the context of the game where Wade had just been fouled hard 2 plays previous with an altercation occurring immediately after, that there should or shouldn't have been a flagrant 1 assessed?

Yep, IMO that type of play needs to be penalized as more than a common foul. It's contact directly from behind on a break-away against an airborne and vulnerable player. The risk for injury is high.

However, it seems that the league disagrees with my view as they announced today that they have rescinded the flagrant 1 foul against Wade.

[Nevadaref]

Rondo up to his cheap tactics again tonight.
He is being a thug, which is too bad because he is a decent player and doesn't need to resort to such. Just got a flagrant 1.
Yet again he was probably lucky to get a lesser penalty than likely deserved.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Terrible thought process for officiating. Obviously more of that pro philosophy garbage. What happened to your earlier comment about officials judging the action and not the intent? The "story" behind the play would fall into that.


Yep, real officials don't care what the "context" of the game is. They simply get the play right. 1st Q or 4th Q, that's more than a common foul.

Yep, IMO that type of play needs to be penalized as more than a common foul. It's contact directly from behind on a break-away against an airborne and vulnerable player. The risk for injury is high.

However, it seems that the league disagrees with my view as they announced today that they have rescinded the flagrant 1 foul against Wade.

Im sorry i shouldn't have used the word "story" cause i too, believe the game should be called the same from start to finish. And my comment about judging action and not intent still holds true. if we judged intent on that play its very possible that we give Rondo a Flagrant 1. Obvious pro philosophy garbage?? That "garbage" gets plays right in the 93-97 perecentile if im not mistaken. What other "philosophy" can tout that?

It's as simple as getting the play right, huh? That easy?

you can have opinions... everybody can, but your opinion and mine don't mean anything in regards to the Wade play. The NBA doesn't have "philosophies" we have standards and rules. The rule says in order to assess a Flagrant 1 the contact has to be unnecessary and Wade's contact was not unnecessary he was attempting to make a great defensive play with which he failed to do.

So are you going to assess an intentional foul if this was in a college game? Doesn't the rule say the player has to make an attempt on the ball? if that's the case then that is what Wade did and you would not have a basis for assessing an intentional foul other than your opinion is that the airborne shooter is vulnerable and the chance of injury is high?? I actually think that's a noble thought process and thats why you should absolutely assess a foul, but by rule you're not justified in doing anything else.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Im sorry i shouldn't have used the word "story" cause i too, believe the game should be called the same from start to finish.

Good.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

And my comment about judging action and not intent still holds true.

Agree.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

if we judged intent on that play its very possible that we give Rondo a Flagrant 1.

Nope, you have it backwards. If only the action of smacking someone directly in the mouth was ajudged, then the play would have been ruled a flagrant 1. It is when intent is brought into it that someone rationalizes the play down to a common foul by saying, "He was just going for the ball."
If you aren't going to officiate intent, then you shouldn't care what he was trying to do, you should observe and penalize WHAT HE DID DO.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Obvious pro philosophy garbage?? That "garbage" gets plays right in the 93-97 perecentile if im not mistaken. What other "philosophy" can tout that?

Yep, it's garbage because you have a league office that tells people to call it this way or that way, which isn't what it says in the rules book. In order to have any meaningful measure of whether or not a play is called correctly, the league would have to actually follow a set of written rules. They don't. They just talk and spin it however they wish.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

It's as simple as getting the play right, huh? That easy?

Should be. What else is an official striving to do out there?

Originally Posted by btaylor64

you can have opinions... everybody can, but your opinion and mine don't mean anything in regards to the Wade play. The NBA doesn't have "philosophies" we have standards and rules. The rule says in order to assess a Flagrant 1 the contact has to be unnecessary and Wade's contact was not unnecessary he was attempting to make a great defensive play with which he failed to do.

This paragraph summarizes why you don't get it.
1. You believe that the NBA follows standards and rules instead of philosophies. We disagree.
2. You don't believe that upending someone from behind and causing him to fall on his backside is unnecessary contact.
3. You state that Wade was "attempting" to make a great defensive play. We already covered the fact that you shouldn't care about what he was trying to do. That would be intent. You stated that intent shouldn't be judged, only the action.
4. You even admit that Wade failed in his attempt. Well, then shouldn't he be properly penalized for this failure? He is the one who took the risk of challenging from a very poor position, so when he wasn't able to make a great play he should pay the heavier penalty. He had the choice to let his opponent go uncontested which would have ensured his safety.
However, what did Wade do? He put the safety of his opponent at risk. That is what the official needs to be basing the decision upon. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

So are you going to assess an intentional foul if this was in a college game? Doesn't the rule say the player has to make an attempt on the ball? if that's the case then that is what Wade did and you would not have a basis for assessing an intentional foul other than your opinion is that the airborne shooter is vulnerable and the chance of injury is high?? I actually think that's a noble thought process and thats why you should absolutely assess a foul, but by rule you're not justified in doing anything else.

This is exactly why you need to completely quit working NCAA level games and focus solely on the pro games, if you haven't already. You simply don't know the NCAA rules, and worse, you also don't care to learn them.

A player can definitely still be assessed an intentional personal foul despite making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. All the official has to deem is that the player still caused excessive contact.

Part 1 is the rule basis for deeming the Wade play an intentional personal foul in an NCAA setting.

2009 NCAA Rule
4-29-2
d. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal
foul that, on the basis of an official’s observation of the act, may be
purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the severity of
the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while
playing the ball;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the
clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. (Women) This act shall
also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary.
(See Rule 4-17.1.g)

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Nope, you have it backwards. If only the action of smacking someone directly in the mouth was ajudged, then the play would have been ruled a flagrant 1. It is when intent is brought into it that someone rationalizes the play down to a common foul by saying, "He was just going for the ball."
If you aren't going to officiate intent, then you shouldn't care what he was trying to do, you should observe and penalize WHAT HE DID DO.

I disagree. To me, if you are reffing intent on this play you are saying "wow he hit him in the face and wasn't making an attempt on the ball!" If you are reffing action then you say, "Was that hit to the head unnecessary and/or excessive".

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, it's garbage because you have a league office that tells people to call it this way or that way, which isn't what it says in the rules book. In order to have any meaningful measure of whether or not a play is called correctly, the league would have to actually follow a set of written rules. They don't. They just talk and spin it however they wish.

This is where you have no clue what you're talking about. Our "league office" is now called the NBA Referee Operations Dept. Which is a seperate entity to David Stern and his league office. For you to say that we don't follow the written rules is a ridiculous statement.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Should be. What else is an official striving to do out there?

Well apparently you don't know what it takes to have the complete package as a referee. its not solely about getting plays right. The "complete" referee is a phenomenal playcaller, great game manager and great communicator.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This paragraph summarizes why you don't get it.
1. You believe that the NBA follows standards and rules instead of philosophies. We disagree.
2. You don't believe that upending someone from behind and causing him to fall on his backside is unnecessary contact.
3. You state that Wade was "attempting" to make a great defensive play. We already covered the fact that you shouldn't care about what he was trying to do. That would be intent. You stated that intent shouldn't be judged, only the action.
4. You even admit that Wade failed in his attempt. Well, then shouldn't he be properly penalized for this failure? He is the one who took the risk of challenging from a very poor position, so when he wasn't able to make a great play he should pay the heavier penalty. He had the choice to let his opponent go uncontested which would have ensured his safety.
However, what did Wade do? He put the safety of his opponent at risk. That is what the official needs to be basing the decision upon. Nothing else.

1. I don't "believe" anything. I KNOW it! We have standards and we follow them very strongly.
2. I was perfectly fine with the FF1 at the point and time in the game and in fact you make a very good point and if you came to me during the game and said that exact statement, I would say "you know what Nevada, I agree let's go FF1"
3. What action was he performing then? I don't get how you're not judging the action???
4. I get what your saying about safety, but you are, in fact, penalizing him for his failure and therefore you did protect the shooter best you could... by blowing the whistle for a def. foul.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is exactly why you need to completely quit working NCAA level games and focus solely on the pro games, if you haven't already. You simply don't know the NCAA rules, and worse, you also don't care to learn them.

A player can definitely still be assessed an intentional personal foul despite making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. All the official has to deem is that the player still caused excessive contact.

Part 1 is the rule basis for deeming the Wade play an intentional personal foul in an NCAA setting.

2009 NCAA Rule
4-29-2
d. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal
foul that, on the basis of an official’s observation of the act, may be
purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the severity of
the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while
playing the ball;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the
clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. (Women) This act shall
also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary.
(See Rule 4-17.1.g)

So you're saying that this was "excessive" contact. So you are dumping him in the pro game then?? Would you have considered it "excessive" had the off. player landed on his feet?

Well I'll guarantee you this... you quit talking like you know pro rules and standards and ill quit trying to quote college rules. It's not that I didn't KNOW the rule I just didn't know all of it. I don't mind knowing the college rules and in fact I know most of them. I just learned a little more. Is that wrong?

Originally Posted by btaylor64

The "complete" referee is a phenomenal playcaller, great game manager and great communicator.

What are you saying, to be successful it takes more than just running up & down the court, blowing the whistle on CC?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

What are you saying, to be successful it takes more than just running up & down the court, blowing the whistle on CC?

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so, because yes it takes way more than just running and blowing the whistle.

I forgot the smiley