2011 NCAAM Sweet 16

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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

Originally Posted by tref

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tref

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.

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

[tref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know this is hard for some to grasp, but not everyone has the same judgment.

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

Originally Posted by tref

I think the leagues rules are written best, terms like gather & clear path are clear cut & takes the judgment out of the equation.

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is? Where does it say that in the rulebook?

It doesnt...

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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.

Originally Posted by tref

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??

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

Peace

[Adam]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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