APG's clip in post 148... INT but I can see if they stick with a regular foul in the NCAA.

He jumped. When he got grabbed around the waist, he stopped going up. That looks the same from every angle.

If it was so obvious, why was it not called? Keep in mind the angles we have are different than the officials on the floor too.

Peace

Ya got me. Why were the two obvious travels on the other play not called?

Perhaps things are different in their area.

Seeing the entire play, even if the initial swipe was at the ball, I'm still int.

At best, you have one player committing multiple fouls against an airborne shooter, the second of which is intentional. I'm penalizing the more severe foul here.

Hmmm never saw them get together... the C held up for some reason, maybe the L was the R?

Obviously...

Not saying what "I" would do. I posed 2 questions:
Are we thinking INT?
Should time & score matter?
for discussion & AS USUAL, when you dont agree you change words around &/or focus on terminology to get your point across.

Because it was too early in the game to make that the standard for INTs... time & score obviously do matter in managing a game properly.

Perhaps they do not think it was an intentional foul. I am not seeing a 100% agreement here for God’s sake. I know this is hard for some to grasp, but not everyone has the same judgment. And you said that a very strong guy was prevented from jumping. In my experience if that contact prevented him from jumping, both players would have been on the floor. That was not a little guard going to the basket that might have been the strongest guy on the floor that night.

And travels are missed in every game that is ever played. So that is a silly question if you ask me.

Peace

That is my fault...I cut out that portion in the clip. They did in fact come together before they reported the foul.

That was more obvious than the call they came up with.


Time and score does not matter with me. Just like the kind of path a player has does not matter with me either. ;)

How did I change the words around? I stated very clearly why I felt it was not an intentional foul, you are the only one that has stuck to a standard that is not stated in any rules at the NCAA or NF level with your "clear path" standard. It was not obvious to me that this was anything other than many other fouls we would call in a game.

It is? Where does it say that in the rulebook? I have seen intentional fouls called by many officials in the first few minutes of the game on plays like this where a player as a easy layup or dunk. The action is what makes it an intentional foul, not the time in the game if you are using the rules about this kind of foul.

Peace

Which is why the NBA ruleset is superior, clear path = no judgment.

If we added gather to our books, we would have less do overs for obvious shooting fouls too,

It doesnt...

Anywho, I'm done with this one. How about them Jayhawks??

OK, but it even appears there is judgment based on the rules quoted. But if you believe so OK. Oh and if you think there still would not be judgment, then you have a lot to learn about officiating. There is always judgment when decisions are being made even when rules are much more precise and specific.

There are do overs on shooting fouls (or you are seeing them a lot)? OK, I guess.

Peace

While it's ovious to me, it obviously wasn't to the guys on the floor; that means something. I don't think the time and score matter, although previous action (hard fouls) might. Personally, I have this as an intentional at any point in the game. I'll live with the fact that it probably means I won't work in Peoria.

If you change the fact that he was going to the basket and no one but those two were around, I do not see how this would be an intentional foul. Which is why I do not use standards like "clear path" to make these calls.

Peace

+1

From the VCU vs. Kansas game:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Gly0KmkRFG8?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" width="640"></iframe>

Agree/disagree? Some discussion about this play in the chat room when it happened live...was it actually a hold or not and if we had to put air in the whistle on this one.