BU just got jobbed.

Funny that you try to claim it was a hypertechnical application of the rule and ignore most of the prongs of the rule and focus solely on the discredited notion that Dunn making a legitimate play on the ball would prevent an intentional foul being called.

Go back in the thread and read the rule in the link provided. Read the officiating guidelines, too.

Ref had clear view to see:

Dunn running into Taylor from behind. Intentional foul according to rule and guidelines.

Dunn forcing Taylor out of bounds with the body check. Can be considered intentional foul, even if contact began as legitimate play on the ball.

Pretty easy intentional foul call, even if the ref isn't in position to see Dunn using his arm to try to prevent Taylor from going up for the shot.

I'd also say the burden of proof is on the OP who was claiming Baylor got "jobbed" on the call. Maybe there is some area of disagreement here, but there's no way anyone can say the ref has no justification for the call when the rule and the guidelines expressly say it would be appropriate.
 
Fine, I'll play along.

1. Dunn didn't run into him from behind. They converged at the same point from two separate angles. By definition that is not "running into from behind", especially applying such strict word construction as you advocate.

2. Dunn didn't bodycheck. He clearly wrapped him up in an effort to prevent risk of injury. The interpretation of that as a "body check" is strained, especially under the strict word construction that you advocate.

We're discussing a subjective issue here. The OP will never be able to meet an objective standard of proving his case. If the vast majority of observers telling you that it was a bad call is not enough for you, nothing will suffice.
 
Dames33, in response:

1) If Dunn was not running into Taylor from behind, how did he wind up with his chest against Taylor's back after reaching from behind to strike over Taylor's arm? Because he approached from 6:30 or so and not from exactly 6 o'clock, you think he wasn't running into Taylor from behind?

2) Wrapping up to prevent injury shouldn't be a defense if the only reason there is a threat of injury is because you are running into a guy and knocking him out of bounds. The rule is designed to prevent needless fouls that are likely to cause injury. Trying to take preventive measure after the foul doesn't mean the foul didn't happen in the first place.

3) What vast majority agrees with the OP? caesarscott, hanshorn, and you agree with the OP. GoHornsGo, MediaMan, and me agree with the ref. VinceFord and topwater seem to agree with the ref, though they aren't exactly clear on that point.
 
I think some of you are confusing "allowed to move" (this only means backward or beating a ball handler to a spot) with "allowed to move however you want as long as the ball handler's out of control." Those are separate rules. The Dunn play applies to the latter.
 
PIcture of the foul.

1a. Clearly not running into him from behind. The collision was chest to shoulder. In other words they converged at a spot. There is simply no way that Dunn is fast enough to have chased somebody down from behind and then gotten around the player and into position for the chest to shoulder impact...

1b. Clearly not a body check.

1c. Clear play on the ball being made.

2. If you aren't willing to tolerate preventive measures like wrapping up, coaches will adjust by coaching their players to make hard, clean fouls in mid air where real risk of injury occurs. (Just like the A&M kid that was laid out at the rim this past monday night by the KU player).

3. You're still ignoring my most important point. I gladly concede that there can be a hyper technical case made for the intentional foul here. BUT then you have to call any foul that meets the hyper technical definition of an intentional foul an intentional foul. Are you willing to live with that in the end of game situaiton where your Longhorns are sending the team they are trailing to the line by fouling intentionally in the backcourt and it is called as an intentional foul? If you don't think those rtype of fouls rise to the level of intentional foul, I can see how you could possibly differentiate those fouls from Dunn's.
 
Fine. Keeping talking Dames. You show a picture of Dunn with his chest pressed up against Taylor's buttocks and you want to argue that's not coming from behind? A picture taken in a play in which Dunn was chasing Taylor down the floor on a breakaway? Go right ahead.

You want to say clearly not a body check when your picture shows full body contact on a foul in which the offensive player was taken to the floor out of bounds? What do you need? A wall for the players to crash into?

Slapping across arms or reaching around a player standing on the ground holding the ball usually won't be called an intentional foul due to the exceedingly low risk of injury. Knocking a player out of bounds, whether you are attempting to "protect" him is the sort of thing that is much more likely to cause injury and much more likely to be called an intentional foul. You shouldn't have any problem making that distinction.

Finally, try to understand and let all the announcers out there know that making a play on the ball does not automatically prevent contact from being an intentional foul. Every time you say "clearly a play on the ball," you're just proving you don't understand the rule or simply refuse to accept it.

Great, you and the OP don't like the rule. Sucks for you, I guess.

On that play, an intentional foul was not only correctly called under the terms of the rule and guidelines, it should have been called, and it will be called that way in most instances in the future. You might want to get used to it.
 
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