Louisville-Syracuse Int. Foul

[Adam]

Question: was the player attempting to play the ball?
The replay I saw was inconclusive on that question, so I would defer to the judgment of the official who made the call. He didn't hesitate on it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Question: was the player attempting to play the ball?
The replay I saw was inconclusive on that question, so I would defer to the judgment of the official who made the call. He didn't hesitate on it.

I know that's a rule of thumb for intentional fouls, but it's not in the NFHS rule (don't know the NCAAM rule).

By the criteria stated in the rule -- excessive contact or deliberately attempting to neutralize an opponent's obviously advantageous position -- this call would not be appropriate, IMO.

I'm aware that there's a case play that employs the rule of thumb (in scare quotes, whatever that's supposed to signify) about an end-of-game situation. I guess I'm just wondering about the status of the rule of thumb.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I know that's a rule of thumb for intentional fouls, but it's not in the NFHS rule (don't know the NCAAM rule).

It's in the rule. 4-19-3

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional....

[PIAA REF]

His intent was to stop the clock, but according to rule you can intend to foul for strategy sake. From the replay I think he was trying for the ball and hit the guy in the shoulder as the offensive players body shifted. My thinking is that the Lead who called the foul had a bad view. Would you be ok on a play like this if the trail had a view on it if he came in and gave input that may have detered the lead from making it intentional? OR do you think the trail should have said nothing and just let the leads call stand? This is under the assumption that the trail saw the foul and deemed it non-intentional.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

His intent was to stop the clock, but according to rule you can intend to foul for strategy sake. From the replay I think he was trying for the ball and hit the guy in the shoulder as the offensive players body shifted. My thinking is that the Lead who called the foul had a bad view. Would you be ok on a play like this if the trail had a view on it if he came in and gave input that may have detered the lead from making it intentional? OR do you think the trail should have said nothing and just let the leads call stand? This is under the assumption that the trail saw the foul and deemed it non-intentional.

I'm ok if they go the other way, but I wouldn't really be all that appreciative if my partner came in and tried to talk me out of an intentional. I watched the replay a few times and really couldn't tell, but the official right there made very decisive and quick call on it.

[PIAA REF]

I am not sure how I feel about someone coming in and talking whether it should have been or not. I remember a game where someone beat my whistle and had a personal when I was 100% sure I was going intentional. I just ate it, but thought about talking to him but didn't

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by PIAA REF

From the replay I think he was trying for the ball and hit the guy in the shoulder as the offensive players body shifted. My thinking is that the Lead who called the foul had a bad view.

From a live view and numerous replays, I think that he deliberately grabbed his opponent's shoulder and pulled him backward. Contact alone would have sent the player with the ball in the opposite direction. He also would have had to go through his opponent to get at the ball; he was behind him. My thinking is that the official that made the call got it right.

And note also that I detest Louisville because their coach is one of the all-time great scumbags, right up there with Calipari and his ilk. Be that as it may, it was still the correct and proper call imo.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

From a live view and numerous replays, I think that he deliberately grabbed his opponent's shoulder and pulled him backward. Contact alone would have sent the player with the ball in the opposite direction. He also would have had to go through his opponent to get at the ball; he was behind him. My thinking is that the official that made the call got it right.

I was watching the replay trying to figure out how the player fell the way he did. Judging by how quickly the official came up with the X, and the angle he had between the players, it's almost as if he could see something we can't.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was watching the replay trying to figure out how the player fell the way he did. Judging by how quickly the official came up with the X, and the angle he had between the players, it's almost as if he could see something we can't.

Quick yank on the shoulder twisted him backwards. And the L was in the perfect position to see it. He stepped out on the floor to see the separation. Great job imo...and I said that when I saw it....and as I aslo said, I sureashell ain't fond of Louisville.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's in the rule. 4-19-3

Duh. I recalled only clause #1.