Nova / Syracuse rescinded intentional

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Is it possible he signaled, then retracted the intentional right away only to go look at the tape?

They went to the video after they retracted the intentional to determine whether or not it was flargrant.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

They went to the video after they retracted the intentional to determine whether or not it was flargrant.

And you know this? Or you're speculating?

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And you know this? Or you're speculating?

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."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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."

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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 Also, before going to the monitor, clearly explain to the coaches that I had rescinded my IF and that we now constulting to monitor to determine if it was flagrant.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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

I saw that, too, and noticed that they were not quoting the officials, they were quoting Boeheim (I think). So who knows what the officials actually said.

[TheOracle]

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

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.

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? 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.

[Rich]

[QUOTE=TheOracle;732949]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Bullspit. It was certainly intentional and excessive contact to boot.