And you know this? Or you're speculating?

That is indeed my understanding. You can always upgrade if you have a monitor, but you can't downgrade. Because of this, I've been told to simply never give an intentional signal (if there's a monitor available).

From the article that someone linked...

"The three officials then went to the replay monitor at midcourt, but not to determine if the foul was intentional. Through a Big East Conference representative, the officials said there were checking to see if the foul was flagrant."

I saw this play, and from the TV angle, it looked like the defender deflected the ball AFTER the pass had been released, thus the OOB violation and nothing more. Triche was pleading his case, but the official was explaining why it was just an OOB.

Which, by rule, is correct. But I don't think that is in dispute. What's in dispute is whether there was an intentional foul indicated at the spot of the foul. If that was the case they cannot use the monitor and then downgrade it to a regular ole personal foul.

The question then is whether the official can "retract" his prelim signal here. Or is this the 2nd situation where a prelim signal is binding (blarges being the other situation)? It looks horrible, but it is within the rules?

I can only speak for myself. If I were to rescind an intentional call in this situation I would:

1. Do so before going to the monitor
2. Also, before going to the monitor, clearly explain to the coaches that I had rescinded my IF and that we now constulting to monitor to determine if it was flagrant.

That being said, I don't think John Adams wants officials signalling IF on the spot, then rescinding the IF, and then saying "well, we're going to the monitor to see if we have a flagrant foul". Just not a logical sequence, IMO.

With #1, there's no way to know from watching the game if he did this.
With the rest, I completely concur; but again, just because you explain it to the coaches does not mean the fans and TV guys are going to understand what happened.

It does look bad, though, regardless. If nothing else, it's an issue of poor mechanics and makes you look indecisive. Sort of like the block/charge call where the official starts to go with the PC signal before dropping his hands down for a block call.

Naw, that's not in dispute at all. If you look at the video that mbyron linked, you'll see the L signal an intentional foul.

Syracuse Orange vs. Villanova Wildcats - Recap - February 21, 2011 - ESPN

Can't see video but I trust what you are saying. But according to reports it's being said that the officials stated there was no IF. And the fact that they went to the monitor and came away with a 2-shot personal foul gives that report some credence. Because by rule you can't downgrade a foul using the monitor.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee;732939]Naw, that's not in dispute at all. If you look at the video that mbyron linked, you'll see the L signal an intentional foul.
QUOTE]

There is no debate. He made a preliminary signal on a double-whistle that was not his call. It was not an intentional foul. The L had no chance to see the play up top because of the backboard, which is exactly why it was not his call. The C explained that to him, told him there was no way it was an intentional foul, and the L smartly and correctly deferred to the C. The crew did the right thing, and nobody will be penalized for it at all. End of story.

Well then, we may as well close the thread. :rolleyes:

Am I going to have to give you a list of people not to quote?:mad:

It's not the L's call on a fast break shot? Gee, you learn something new every day.

You're really saying that the L couldn't see the contact because the backboard blocked his view of the contact? You're saying the contact was OVER 10 feet off the ground. Do you know how ridiculous that is? Did you even bother to watch the video? If so, take a look at the level the contact was actually made at.

And you know all of what was said...how?:confused: You really know exactly every single word the the C said to the L? And you know for absolutely sure then that the L smartly and correctly deferred to the C?

Or are you just oracling to hear yourself oracle again? If so, try not to get any of your oraclings on you. They're harder than hell to get out in the wash.

That's the problem, Newz. The officials are saying that there was no IF, yet a signal was definitely given for the IF. What hasn't been given afaik is an explanation of why the IF signal was given and then an IF was not applied. If they hadda done exactly what you recommended doing in your post #37 above, it wouldn't have looked so bad and we wouldn't be discussing this.