Nova / Syracuse rescinded intentional

[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.

[ThatOneRef]

Scout.com: So you can change an intentional foul call on replay?

[APG]

Typical fanboyism...even have some of them who apparently visit the forum.

[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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Well then, we may as well close the thread.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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

I wondered about that, so I went back and cut most of his post out. You'll have to read JR's post to get the real drivel.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I wondered about that, so I went back and cut most of his post out. You'll have to read JR's post to get the real drivel.

Thanks. You're a real pal. Send me a pm so I can return the favor some day.

[upprdeck]

of course the head of the BE officials also ruled today the correct call should have been excessive use of force 2 shots and the ball..

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Thanks. You're a real pal. Send me a pm so I can return the favor some day.

Quit whining and enjoy your weather.

[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.

[TheOracle]

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee;732963]It's not the L's call on a fast break shot? Gee, you learn something new every day.

I guess you really don't know much. On a fast break, the L takes his side, and the C takes the other. Glad I'm able to teach you something.