NCAA Men's question

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

If I have good game awareness and the presence of mind to recognize the impact of my call choice, I'm going with the PC foul even if it could have been intentional or flagrant (assuming it was at least a 50/50 or better case of B1 having legal guarding position). Indeed, I don't want to reward Team A here. Let the players determine the outcome the way it should be determined, i.e. in overtime.

Of course if this is college, especially NCAAM, with the restricted area and all, I have a lot more to think about. Damn, that's a tricky one. Great officials have all of these possible outcomes figured out in advance like chess players during closing seconds of close games. I am not a great official. Yet?

In reverse, the reason for what is in blue being true is because you buy into the silliness in red and would purposely make the incorrect call in black instead of simply applying the rules properly.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

In reverse, the reason for what is in blue being true is because you buy into the silliness in red and would purposely make the incorrect call in black instead of simply applying the rules properly.

Got this mindset from an NBA official who lives in the area and stays connected to our board, where he started 20+ years ago. I'm going with his point of view.

It's not about purposely making an incorrect call. It's about choosing the appropriate application of the rules, and in this case the boundary between PC/intentional and intentional/flagrant is subjective to begin with. That said, in defense of dignity, I suppose if the personal foul were blatantly flagrant, I wouldn't have much of a choice because the DQ of that player would be very important at that point. I'll give you that.

Officiating is an art, not a science.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Got this mindset from an NBA official who lives in the area and stays connected to our board, where he started 20+ years ago. I'm going with his point of view.

I've known a few NBA guys over the years and talked philosophy with them.
Some of what they say is appropriate at the HS and college level and other stuff isn't.
The main thing to remember is that the NBA is an entertainment business. The people involved are paid to perform a show. That is not the case at the HS and college levels. That is precisely why this particular way of thinking has no place at these levels of competition. True competition requires impartial arbiters of the rules (ie people who go by the book). The entertainment business allows for some thinking of what produces the best product and spectacle for those watching.

[La Rikardo]

They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

I'm guessing because they never saw an intentional or flagrant foul on an airborne shooter and they never thought about it.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

Man, I couldn't agree more with every word of this post. Don't get me wrong, I'll still apply the rules as they are written, but this would be a great change.

[La Rikardo]

If it's a borderline call between PC and intentional in this particular end-of-game situation, I'd be inclined to err on the side of PC because of this rule. If, however, the airborne shooter kicks an opponent in the face after releasing the ball on the try, I wouldn't have much of a choice but to count the basket. Slightly absurd.

Either that or they could just go with the NCAA rule of counting the basket regardless of any foul that may occur after the ball is in flight on a try.

Can someone explain to me why a flagrant or intentional foul committed by an airborne shooter cannot also be classified a player-control foul? I read the definitions of each and don't see anything that makes them mutually exclusive.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Can someone explain to me why a flagrant or intentional foul committed by an airborne shooter cannot also be classified a player-control foul? I read the definitions of each and don't see anything that makes them mutually exclusive.

The definitions says: A player control foul is a common foul......

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

They could amend 5-1-2 pretty easily to cancel the goal in the event of any personal foul by an airborne shooter. Is there a reason the rule-makers don't want an intentional personal foul to cancel the goal?

Sadly, the NFHS doesn't often do what makes sense and sometimes even goes the opposite direction into absurdness.

For example, a several years ago Team A lost the right to run the endline when Team B committed any foul during the throw-in. The NFHS changed that to allow this privilege to be retained. However, just a few years ago the NFHS revoked the privilege of running the endline from Team A when Team B commits an intentional or flagrant personal foul immediately prior to or during the throw-in. This was done by adding the word "common" to rule 7-5-7b.

Several of us on here questioned the logic in taking something away from Team A because Team B offends in a more serious manner.