Code words
 

Just did a MS tourney today... the code word for one team was "Terminator"... I thought that was a unique choice.

I stand corrected and apologize to Mr. Denucci. I was not aware of the POE. However this still could lead to the question of who has credibility as a spokesman in this case.
The coach gives quiet instructions in the huddle to go for a quick steal, then if we don't get it foul but make sure you make a good swipe at the ball. Then as the huddle breaks this one very helpful young man on the end of the bench says, "Hey, Mr. Ref, we're gonna foul here." This situation provided one of the definitive "a coach says the same thing in the same situation, no matter what really happened," for me. Backcourt pressure last minute of the game, coach is dramatically making a hack gesture, his player runs up behind the dribbler and grabs her by the hips with both hands. Whistle, crossed hands. Coach: "What??? She went for the ball!!" We shot 2 free throws, then he called timeout. As they broke the huddle, he said several times, "Don't grab them."

Justa,if you re-read Camron Rust's post,I think that that's a pretty good way to call this type of situation.You call what you are sure is happening,not what you think may be happening.If a player is going for the ball and there is not an excessive amount of contact,it's a normal,everyday common foul,as far as I'm concerned. That's how we train our officials to call it,and I know a lot of Associations or Groups use the exact same philosophy.I'd check on this one with your local rules interpreter though,if I were you,and find out how he wants it called.What you do want is uniformity in this type of call in your area. The coaches and players have to know what to expect from the refs.

Mark's way may be technically correct,but I doubt very much that many areas do call it that strictly.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 25th, 2003 at 08:38 PM]

I agree. The way I see it, around here intentional is not called enough. Players make a grab, sometimes get a handful of jersey, little or no attempt at the ball. Common foul.

The statement above is technically correct.When "intentional fouls" were a POE in 2000/2001,the POE was written to say-Quote-Acts that must be deemed intentional include:-when coach/player says "watch,we're going to foul"-Unquote.Those are the exact words from the written POE that year. A literal translation of that backs up Mark.In the real world however,most rules interpreters tell their officials to call it exactly the way that Camron said.If they go for the ball and make it look good,call it a common foul.We tell our officials not to call these plays with their ears,but with their eyes.We also notified the coaches in our area back then that it wouldn't be too smart to stand by the bench and holler "foul,foul".Most of 'em now use a code word of some type when they want to foul someone quickly in the last minute.Naturally,if their players don't go for the ball and just grab someone,we do want our officials to call the intentional foul.As far as I know,most areas seem to follow those general principles. [/B][/QUOTE]


One does need a literal translation of the 2000-01 POE to back me up. If a coach or player tells the officials that his team or he is going to foul, then you must rule that foul an intentional foul. There is nothing difficult about it.

First of all, having considered the matter, I question the wisdom of splicing a specific example, spoken intentions, into the much broader concept of an intentional foul. Be that as it may, it was so written, so that year I suppose one had to strongly consider that an automatic call. But I, like many others, did not take the test that year, have never seen the 00-01 rulebook, had never heard of this until this thread. I find no reference to this in current rules. Is a small specific point such as this expected to remain alive based on one year of mention in a POE? If some agreed with this and choose to continue to interpret a foul this way, I respect that, but I think the option of ignoring the comments of players on their intentions is also an option. JMHO

First of all, having considered the matter, I question the wisdom of splicing a specific example, spoken intentions, into the much broader concept of an intentional foul. Be that as it may, it was so written, so that year I suppose one had to strongly consider that an automatic call. But I, like many others, did not take the test that year, have never seen the 00-01 rulebook, had never heard of this until this thread. I find no reference to this in current rules. Is a small specific point such as this expected to remain alive based on one year of mention in a POE? If some agreed with this and choose to continue to interpret a foul this way, I respect that, but I think the option of ignoring the comments of players on their intentions is also an option. JMHO [/B][/QUOTE]All the points that you make are valid,IMO,Justa.I think that the problem with FED POE's is exactly what you commented on above.They give us extra information and guidance over and above the wording in the rule and casebooks,but really don't warehouse this info so that it can be referred to in later years.Basically,that's why there is always the need for a local Rules Interpreter- to give you the guidance that you are looking for.Theoretically,the Interpreter should have access to someone from the State(FED) or Conference(NCAA)level to give them guidance as to the proper application of a rule,if there is any doubt.They,then,can pass that info along to you and all the other officials in your group/association/area.As I stated before,to the best of my knowledge,not many areas call this play the way that MTD Sr. suggests.Most areas,including mine, basically call it the way that Camron Rust suggests.The important thing is uniformity.The coaches and players should know how you are going to call plays like this,so that they can adjust.

Again,this is JMHO too.For a more definitive answer,you should be hunting up your local rules guru.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 28th, 2003 at 02:39 AM]