What you guys Think of this? (Video)

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by asdf

The whole game is here....

go to 1:02.10 to see another intentional foul on the throw-in after the first one...

Boys' Basketball Lorain vs. Norwalk 1-11-14 - YouTube

I would also point out that the officials administered the throw-in at the incorrect spot after the second intentional foul. That foul occurred just below the free throw line, inside the key. They still gave white the ball at the division line after the free throws. Throw-in should have been administered on the end line based on where the foul occurred.

[constable]

Common foul on the first. The T is warranted. The 2nd Int I could go either way on.

[JWP]

Not sure I would have called the I.F., but I can see why it was called. Put together the P.O.E. along with the kinda hug, and in my mind, the case for the I.F. can be made.

As a guy who also does play-by-play for the local high school team on the radio, I am embarrassed by the two clowns on the air. Nothing wrong with being supportive of the team you are covering ... but these bozos are way, way over the top.

[JRutledge]

It looks like he basically hugged the ball handler. But that would be helped by a better angle. Otherwise I am just going to with a regular common foul. I would not care how the player acted while being fouled to determine what type of foul was called.

It is certainly not a "horrible call" as suggested. Might not be a great call, but not horrible.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Rich

Watch the foul and then watch the embellishment. That the official got sucked in by that is unfortunate. It's a garden variety and not particularly hard end of game foul.

Anyone who thinks this is remotely close to intentional is..........

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Anyone who thinks this is remotely close to intentional is..........

I happen to think it's excessive contact. But not to the point of an INT. Close? Not really sure. But I don't blame anyone for the thought entering their mind.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I happen to think it's excessive contact. But not to the point of an INT. Close? Not really sure. But I don't blame anyone for the thought entering their mind.

Isn't that the definition of an intentional foul?

4-19-3: A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't that the definition of an intentional foul?

... and, in some places, it has it's own signal?

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I happen to think it's excessive contact. But not to the point of an INT. Close? Not really sure. But I don't blame anyone for the thought entering their mind.

I question the judgement of any official who thinks this is an intentional foul or even close for that matter. As Rich stated on the first page it's a garden variety end of game foul.

As we all know, fouling at the end of the game is an accepted strategy. Officials should be aware of the time, score, and situation.

There is NOTHING here that comes close to intentional. I think the calling official reacted to the kid who as APG said realized he was close to the division line as he jumped then just sort of flopped to get a call. There was absolutely no push whatsoever to cause him to go flying like that and the bear hug talk is ridiculous and silly IMO.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Rich1

Count me in with those who have an intentional foul to go along with the T. By rule, if the player is not making a play on the ball it is an intentional foul. I see the defender grab the dribbler from behind with both hands almost in the fashion of a bear hug. I see no problem with how it was called and probably would have called it the same if I were there. Also note, that the opposing coach stood up immediately calling for the flagrant so others saw it that way when it happened as well (I know several of you will want to blast that statement with some comment about coaches dictating calls but I am ony including it to demonstrate that it was seen that way by him). And, any T that resulted is to be blamed on the player. It does not matter why he disagrees with the call or how bad a call may be a player should never comment or demonstrate in an unsporting manner.

Finally, for any of us to question the honesty and credibility of other officials is unprofessional and counter productive. I don't know one guy nor have I heard of one game from my area where an official cheated. As they like to say in grade school, when you point a finger at someone there are four pointing back at you.

I hope in the future some of you more regular posters can stop trying so hard to find fault with others and stick to discusing / debating rules and situations. I enjoy coming to the forum to learn from each of you but find it hard to wade through the constant negativity of some posters.

Who here questioned the integrity of the officials at any point?

The opposing coach does not stand up to immediately signal anything. Two coaches appear to already be standing and signal for an intentional after the player goes on a self induced flight through the air and just about the same time as the official is crossing his arms. And you should expect to be blasted for this comment b/c it's silly. Of course the coach up by 2 at the end of the game wants an intentional. On more than one occasion I've had coaches ask for intentional on late stop the clock fouls and when I've said, "Coach, that wasnt even close" they've responded, "I know but I thought I'd try...."

Again, nobody here is questioning the integrity of these officials. I just feel very strongly that judging that play to be intentional is horrific end of game officiating. Absolutely horrific.

And I'm surprised that there are even a handful of people here who don't see this as the case.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I happen to think it's excessive contact. But not to the point of an INT..

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Isn't that the definition of an intentional foul?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... and, in some places, it has it's own signal?

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I question the judgment of any official who thinks this is an intentional foul or even close for that matter.

I do not believe that this is an intentional foul, but if JugglingReferee believes that there is "excessive contact", then he has to call an intentional foul for excessive contact, and in some areas that has it's own special signal.

4-19-3-D: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

If I were JugglingReferee, I would not describe this play using the words "excessive contact" (better: "illegal contact"), unless he was planning on calling an intentional foul (which I don't believe that he was planning on doing). There are a few coaches, just a few, who actually read, and understand the rulebook.

"Hey Mr. JugglingReferee? You said that there was excessive contact but you're not calling a intentional foul? What about 4-19-3-D, that you can see right here in my handy pocket size rulebook? Need your reading glasses? What? Why would you call a technical foul on me for just sticking a page of the rulebook in your face? I haven't gotten a technical foul in over forty years. You're damn right I'm yelling. What? Another one? What? I don't even know where the bus is parked."

[Brad]

The second foul, on the throw-in after the first one, is definitely intentional. The first one, not so much.

As a side note, it completely irks me that the official waits like 3-4 seconds before signaling anything. That’s part of his problem imo because it makes it look like he is still deciding what to call (whether or not that may truly be the case).

Call a regular foul on the first one and you don’t have any of this other nonsense.