BU just got jobbed.

The rule on intentional fouls includes grabbing a player from behind in an effort to prevent a score. The rule doesn't require rough stuff.

It was undoubtedly an intentional foul. Taylor, or whoever it was, had a clear path to the basket, and Dunn didn't go up to contest the shot. He just stayed on the floor and wrapped arms around the Missouri player.

Learn the rule before you criticize the ref.
 
I wish we could get jobbed into a win
frown.gif
 
Sticking a hand in and wrapping up a player do not equal playing the ball. Just because an announcer buys it, doesn't mean he's a better interpreter of the rule than the ref. The announcers were disputing whether there was an attempt to play the ball,which isn't necessarily the determining factor. A ref can call the intentional foul simply by deciding the player grabbed or pushed to prevent a shot attempt.

Most of the time, that will be called an intentional foul, no matter how much you rolll your eyes. Had Dunn just stuck left hand in below the arm to swipe, it might not have been called. By sticking the left arm over the shooter's arm and trying to prevent Taylor from elevating for the layup, it was clearly nothing more than an attempt to prevent the player from getting a shot off.

Ergo, by the rule, intentional foul. Refs are going to call that an intentional foul far more often than not.

BTW, "not playing the ball" is an example of conduct than can be called an intentional foul. Grabbing or pushing from behiind is another. Look at the rule. There are several examples given that allow for the ref to interpret the contact to be an intentional foul.
 
my favorite part of this thread is the comment that if the "tv" guys says it's a bad call, then it's a bad call. yeah, those guys know a shitload about what they're talking about. give me a frickin break.
 
it was a terrible call, but not as bad as the no call when the mu player landed on the bu players back with his knees(worked out ok for bu, but still a bad call).
 
I was going to deny knowing more than nearly all the commentators, but today's Syracuse-Louisville game has me suddenly in doubt.

What I don't doubt is that the refs know the rules better than the announcers. I suspect that oftentimes, when I look up the rule and the announcers don't, then I know the rule better than the announcers.

For those of you who missed it, the announcers in the Syracuse-Louisville game questioned an intentional foul call by saying it looked like the Syracuse player was making a legitimate play for the ball. One of them even made the idiotic comment that the intent doesn't count as long as there is a play for the ball.

WRONG.

You guys really need to read Rule 4, Section 29, art. 2(d) and the officiating guidelines appended to the NCAA rules.

An intentional foul is a foul that based on the ref's observation MAY BE pursposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the severity. Examples include

1) Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while playing the ball;

2) Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting;

3) Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score.

The guidellines list eight different things that are intentional fouls, including:

Running into the back of a player who has the ball

Grabbing the arm or body of the player while initially trying to gain control of the ball by playing the ball directly

Causing excessive contact with an opponent while trying to play the ball

In both the Baylor-Mizzou and the Syracuse-Louisville games, the ref called what the rules tell him to call, and in both cases the announcers showed they were ignorant of the rule.

Go read the rules, guys.

Da Rulez
 
No, because it has to be specifically designed to stop the clock AND not be a legitimate attempt to play man and ball.

I would say a lot of end of game fouls could be called intentional, but they aren't, due to the refs showing pretty good restraint.
 
Traditional argument Stat, but that unwritten rule was "written" a long time ago. Basketball doesn't work without it...
 
Well, it would work, but it would be boring at the end. It would be almost impossible for the trailing team to get back in the game... something like what you see when a team is down by 10 or so with a couple of minutes left and keeps fouling.

Same thing with the idea that a team should have the choice to take the ball out of bounds. Inbounding turnovers are difficult to force.

This is a decision of rules-makers to require the team that is leading to perform a fundamental skill of the game if requested by the opposing team. You're just not allowed to foul so hard that you might hurt the opposing player.

I know that reads like it's goofy but that is what is happening.
 
I think it was MU that got jobbed. It was a clear charge by Baylor with 6 seconds left in the game. The refs gave the game to Baylor.
 
I hesitate to get back in this thread in the presence of the omnicient, basketball Oracles. But wasn't the Syracuse-Louisville intentional the one after a missed shot where the rebounder from Louisville got arm-dragged to the court by the Syracuse player? I didn't see the game, just the highlights.

If so, that's not even close to the BU-MU intentional where Dunn fouled the MU player on a layup, then tried to catch him from going into the crowd under the basket. The guy made the bucket for an and 1 for crissakes. It wasn't like he wrapped him up before the shot. Dunn basically got pennalized for trying to keep the MU player from going down hard.

And yes, the next play on the missed ft where the MU player was riding the BU player like a circus pony with both knees on his back was a terrible non-call as well. Never seen that before.
 
The connection between the Syracuse-Louisville and Baylor-Mizzou games was the fact the announcers clearly did not understand the rule, not the severity of contact, but severity of the foul isn't the determining factor, which you would see, if you would ever bother to read the rule, Alex.

Dunn may have wanted to prevent Taylor from getting hurt, but he wasn't innocent of purposeful contact. Taylor would have gone into the crowd only because Dunn ran into him from behind. Ooh. Check rule. Intentional foul.

Stick hand overa player's arm from behind and grab to hold down the player to prevent him from shooting. Intentional foul, even if the original attempt was a play directly on the ball.

Excessive contact, even on an attempt to play the opponent or ball--body knocking Taylor out of bounds--intentional foul.

Taylor had an unimpeded path to the basket. A defender can either try to stick a hand in to poke the ball out or try to go up and contest the shot. Running into the back of the player and wrapping him up isn't an option that any D 1 coach is going to teach, because he knows it means 2 free throws and possession.
 
Oh and FWIW I go to Mizzou and thought the charge call was correct. Just because you are out of control does not give the defender the right to draw a charge while still moving laterally. Close though, quite close.
 
I think GoHornsGo was saying he agreed the call was correct, not that he thought a charge should have been called.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top