The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Apr 30, 2009, 07:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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However, it seems that the league disagrees with my view as they announced today that they have rescinded the flagrant 1 foul against Wade.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.
__________________
"players must decide the outcome of the game with legal actions, not illegal actions which an official chooses to ignore."
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blazers/Celtics 6 on Floor bc7 Basketball 24 Sat Jan 03, 2009 04:45pm
Lakers/Celtics jimpiano Basketball 28 Sun Jun 22, 2008 07:03pm
Bulls-Pistons BoomerSooner Basketball 15 Sat May 12, 2007 12:26pm
Rockets & Celtics Splute Basketball 15 Tue Feb 27, 2007 03:45pm
Runing with the Bulls ! James Neil Football 9 Mon Mar 01, 2004 03:56pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1