Upgrading

[tref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Apples and oranges. The OP appears to be a deliberate act - not a basketball play.

I would have conferred with partners and considered upgrading to at least intentional. But it's easy to second guess from here. At least you got the foul imagine if you were looking at a different matchup and you didn't see it at all.

If my partners had no look or no whistle on the play, I dont need them to confirm that the player is bleeding.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by tref

If my partners had no look or no whistle on the play, I dont need them to confirm that the player is bleeding.

Not sure where you're going with this, but the conference would not be to confirm the player is bleeding. It would be to confer on what happened and whether they saw it or had any input. I may not confer at all and on my way to the table decide it was an intentional. Regardless, I think it would be fine based on the OP to upgrade the call after the initial call.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Not sure where you're going with this, but the conference would not be to confirm the player is bleeding. It would be to confer on what happened and whether they saw it or had any input. I may not confer at all and on my way to the table decide it was an intentional. Regardless, I think it would be fine based on the OP to upgrade the call after the initial call.

Ummm again...

Originally Posted by tref

If my partners had no look or no whistle on the play, I dont need them to confirm that the player is bleeding.

I agree with the rest of what you say! I'm simply saying that blood in & of itself isnt a deciding factor on whether to upgrade or not. Thats all.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by tref

I agree with the rest of what you say! I'm simply saying that blood in of itself isnt a deciding factor on whether to upgrade or not. thats all.

That's cool. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't conferring to see if the player was bleeding, which is what you implied. My original response to your scenario was to declare it an orange in the discussion about apples. Blood had no bearing on my comments.

[tref]

Yezzir!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tref

If my partners had no look or no whistle on the play, I dont need them to confirm that the player is bleeding.

Originally Posted by Smitty

Not sure where you're going with this, but the conference would not be to confirm the player is bleeding. ...

I think he responding to this portion of the OP:

Originally Posted by mbyron

...Thoughts? If you had been my partner and had seen the bloody nose (even if you hadn't seen the foul) would you have asked me about upgrading?

I'm not not coming to my partner to discuss upgrading just because I see blood. I would only come if I too had seen the act in question.

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by tref

If my partners had no look or no whistle on the play, I dont need them to confirm that the player is bleeding.

Why are we discussing blood for changing a foul to intentional or flagrant?
Any elbow you should be thinking maybe intentional. If you find it as an accident keep it as common, if it is intentional or extreme contact then rule it as intentional or flagrant. If there is blood then there is blood. We don't call a foul based on biofluids. (includes tears for girls officials).

[refiator]

Usually your first reaction is the correct one. Don't beat yourself up over how you replay in your mind. You likely made the right call.