PDA

View Full Version : N+O: ACC wrestles with rough play



elvis14
01-17-2010, 07:39 PM
In the Sunday edition of the News and Observer (aka News and Tar Heel), there was an article about the rough play and officiating in the ACC:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/288556.html

This article discusses something that's been bothering me about college hoops for a few years now. More and more it seems that officials ignore the rules to "let them play". In years past, I've noticed it especially in the NCAA tournament. This year it seems that ACC officials have decided that this brand of basketball will be played as well.

With Duke, I've always felt that it hurt us. Like when LSU was allowed to grab and bump Redick all game. In the last week, I've noticed a lot of rough play including the GT game we lost and the wonderful beat down Clemson put on UNC.

Personally, I don't like it. I think it makes for ugly ball with less scoring. I also believe it helps to promote parity because it allows less talented teams to stay in or win games against more talented teams. I'm not saying that officials are biased against Duke, they are just not calling much of anything in the paint.....on either team. I finally figured out why it bothers me so much. Although Duke CAN foul just as much as other teams, we don't need to because we can and will play good defense. So when a team is allowed to push, shove, go over the back etc. it's an equalizer.

Is it just me? The article in the N+O tells me that I'm not the only one that's noticed the change. What do others think. I can't be the only that hates this kind of ball.

Edit: Just noticed this article is linked from the DBR front page as well.

Wheat/"/"/"
01-17-2010, 08:01 PM
It's not just you.

The college game is getting very ugly, and players with a high skill level are not able to show it.

It is particularly bad with the pushing/hand checking that is being allowed against a player in control of the ball.

It's a simple fix, imo.

Call the darn fouls, this is not rugby.

jv001
01-17-2010, 09:15 PM
It's not just you.

The college game is getting very ugly, and players with a high skill level are not able to show it.

It is particularly bad with the pushing/hand checking that is being allowed against a player in control of the ball.

It's a simple fix, imo.

Call the darn fouls, this is not rugby.

Agree 100%. And let's call carrying the ball as well. Kids this day get away with it like the nba no traveling call. Go Duke!

WiJoe
01-17-2010, 10:30 PM
Tonight's game another classic exhibit of WAY over-the-top physical play

wisteria
01-17-2010, 10:32 PM
It seems like our every game against WF ends up with a bunch of guys fouled out. I'm exhausted just watching the game.

Wheat/"/"/"
01-17-2010, 10:35 PM
Tonight's game another classic exhibit of WAY over-the-top physical play

Yep, lucky somebody didn't get seriously hurt in this one tonight.

The front courts for both teams could have, and should have, fouled out.

mgtr
01-17-2010, 10:39 PM
Yep, lucky somebody didn't get seriously hurt in this one tonight.

The front courts for both teams could have, and should have, fouled out.

I agree 100% with these comments!

miramar
01-17-2010, 11:29 PM
According to the article, the refs are independent contractors, which suggests that they can do practically anything they want. Doesn't John Clougherty, the ACC coordinator of basketball officials, have an important say in how league games are officiated?

OZZIE4DUKE
01-18-2010, 12:05 AM
Tonight's win over Wake was brutal. Just brutal. But it was a win!

CameronBornAndBred
01-18-2010, 12:06 AM
Yep, lucky somebody didn't get seriously hurt in this one tonight.
Singler may have been, the team is checking out his wrist tonight.


Team medical officials were examining the wrist after the game, and Singler was unavailable for comment.
"I guess we'll just wait and see what the results are," Mason Plumlee said. "You don't need me to tell you how important he is."


http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/duke/story/289982.html

throatybeard
01-18-2010, 01:06 AM
I made the following statement tonight in snrubchat, and I'll stand by it. College BB has gotten even more unwatchable because of this than the NBA has.

MChambers
01-18-2010, 07:28 AM
According to the article, the refs are independent contractors, which suggests that they can do practically anything they want. Doesn't John Clougherty, the ACC coordinator of basketball officials, have an important say in how league games are officiated?

I saw that in the article, too, and was astonished that the reporter offered that excuse.

They may be independent contractdors, but the NCAA and the conferences don't have to hire them. If there are refs who won't crack down, they don't have to be hired.

roywhite
01-18-2010, 07:32 AM
I made the following statement tonight in snrubchat, and I'll stand by it. College BB has gotten even more unwatchable because of this than the NBA has.

I'm not a regular watcher of the NBA but it seems like they have cleaned up the roughness somewhat. The college game has certainly been diminished by overly physical play.

bgibbs1001
01-18-2010, 07:37 AM
Put a dUNCe alum in charge of the ACC, ie Swofford, and the rough play being allowed in the Wake game is what you get. Getting rid of Swofford will go a long way toward fixing this problem.

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 08:39 AM
What exactly constitues rough play? Is it a hard foul? Putting too much body on someone in the post?

Maybe I'm from the old school, but today's game is far less rough than it was in the 60's 70's and 80's. There's a reason that "flagrant" and "intentional" fouls are already in the rule book.

The thing that drives me nuts about foul calling, and officiating in general is the inconsistancy. I despise it when an officiating crew will "let em' play" for 20-25 minutes of a game, and then suddenly start blowing the whistle every time someone breathes on someone else. I also can't stand it when guards are allowed to body up the ball handler and hand check, then when the game gets tight, the refs start blowing the whistle if the defensive player's jersey grazes the offensive player.

The opposite is just as bad. If you start out calling it tight, call it tight the whole game. Don't call tick-tack fouls the 1st half only to require that blood be drawn in the 2nd half to warrant a foul call.

It's that kind of inconsistancy that leads to "the refs are against this team" or "the refs love that team" which we've all heard on this site and in our friends around home.

I thought the game last night was an emotional, give-it-all you've got, bodies diving on the floor and let the best team win, ACC basketball game and I loved it.

I'll probably be lynched for saying this, but it drove me nuts when Ish Smith was called for an intentional foul when Mason went for the dunk on a fast break. Guys had been getting elbowed, shoved, and locked arm-in-arm on both ends of the floor the entire game. Smith was clearly making a play on the ball and he almost got a partial block. He didn't swat at Mason, or make a "combative blow". Instead of making a call on the action of the intent of the defensive player, he made a call on the reaction of the offensive player hitting the floor. Sure, it was a foul, and yes Mason could've been hurt, but it was not because Ish Smith was trying to hurt him. When athletes run full speed and play above the rim, there is always a potential for something bad to happen.

Genedoc
01-18-2010, 09:03 AM
What exactly constitues rough play? Is it a hard foul? Putting too much body on someone in the post?

Maybe I'm from the old school, but today's game is far less rough than it was in the 60's 70's and 80's. There's a reason that "flagrant" and "intentional" fouls are already in the rule book.

The thing that drives me nuts about foul calling, and officiating in general is the inconsistancy. I despise it when an officiating crew will "let em' play" for 20-25 minutes of a game, and then suddenly start blowing the whistle every time someone breathes on someone else. I also can't stand it when guards are allowed to body up the ball handler and hand check, then when the game gets tight, the refs start blowing the whistle if the defensive player's jersey grazes the offensive player.

The opposite is just as bad. If you start out calling it tight, call it tight the whole game. Don't call tick-tack fouls the 1st half only to require that blood be drawn in the 2nd half to warrant a foul call.

It's that kind of inconsistancy that leads to "the refs are against this team" or "the refs love that team" which we've all heard on this site and in our friends around home.

I thought the game last night was an emotional, give-it-all you've got, bodies diving on the floor and let the best team win, ACC basketball game and I loved it.

I'll probably be lynched for saying this, but it drove me nuts when Ish Smith was called for an intentional foul when Mason went for the dunk on a fast break. Guys had been getting elbowed, shoved, and locked arm-in-arm on both ends of the floor the entire game. Smith was clearly making a play on the ball and he almost got a partial block. He didn't swat at Mason, or make a "combative blow". Instead of making a call on the action of the intent of the defensive player, he made a call on the reaction of the offensive player hitting the floor. Sure, it was a foul, and yes Mason could've been hurt, but it was not because Ish Smith was trying to hurt him. When athletes run full speed and play above the rim, there is always a potential for something bad to happen.

The chasm between the game you watched and the one I watched may simply be too broad to breach. That was most certainly an intentional foul and deserved to be called as such. Pointing your fingers in the general direction of the ball doesn't absolve you from responsibility for controlling your body. Smith hurled himself at Mason with the goal of knocking the hell out of him first and foremost, and if he managed to get in the general vicinity of the ball as a result, all the better. The foul on Kyle should also have been called intentional. Or technical, or flagrant, or whatever the term of the week is. Making a minimal effort to "go for the ball" does not give you carte blanche to hit someone so hard that they end up parallel to the floor, regardless of Tim Brando's incessant babblings.

The NBA and the NHL both had this problem a decade or so ago, and they fixed it. Granted it took drastic measures to do it, but they did fix things and the product on the court/ice is now markedly better for it. The NCAA needs to do the same thing before someone breaks their neck.

MChambers
01-18-2010, 09:46 AM
Smith hurled himself at Mason with the goal of knocking the hell out of him first and foremost, and if he managed to get in the general vicinity of the ball as a result, all the better. The foul on Kyle should also have been called intentional. Or technical, or flagrant, or whatever the term of the week is. Making a minimal effort to "go for the ball" does not give you carte blanche to hit someone so hard that they end up parallel to the floor, regardless of Tim Brando's incessant babblings.


I don't know if that was his goal, but Smith had no chance to make a legit defensive play. From the angle he took, and given Mason's size, Smith knew he and Mason were going to collide. Doesn't matter whether Smith was "going for the ball."

I'd call it an intentional foul every time.

kexman
01-18-2010, 11:34 AM
This is the easiest thing in the world to fix. The ACC in the preseason tells the refs what they consider fouls and how "clean" they want the game to be played. The refs call it that way or they are not hired. The players adjust between games to different sets of refs and how they call the game. It would only take a few games of foul trouble and they would learn to keep their hands off of each other. No one wants to watch a game with 50 fouls called, but the kids would adjust quickly if it was maintained. This is somewhat simplistic view...but it doesn't seem that hard.
It would be nice if this was uniform across conferences so that come time for the NCAA tourney there was not major differences in the conference reffing policies.

cf-62
01-18-2010, 12:08 PM
Smith was clearly making a play on the ball and he almost got a partial block. He didn't swat at Mason, or make a "combative blow". Instead of making a call on the action of the intent of the defensive player, he made a call on the reaction of the offensive player hitting the floor. Sure, it was a foul, and yes Mason could've been hurt, but it was not because Ish Smith was trying to hurt him. When athletes run full speed and play above the rim, there is always a potential for something bad to happen.

The potential for injury is why the rule is written as it is. Yes, Ish made a play on the ball, and yes, he even might have hit the ball, but there was no way that he was going to be able to stop the score (clean or not) without endangering the offensive player. THAT, by definition, is a flagrant foul.

And that is what should have been called.

You are not allowed (at any level of basketball) to simply try to block the ball and endanger the opposition. If it were allowed, you would see plays like that every game, not just every Wake Forest game.

MChambers
01-18-2010, 12:09 PM
First, there is the rough play generally, especially bumping dribblers and pushing down low. That needs to be reigned in quite a bit. It's hard, especially on the blocks, because both players are pushing. It's not so hard to call the grabs and bumps away from the basket.

Second, there is the rough foul on the player in the air. I still don't understand why Villanova didn't get a flagrant foul when one of their players took out Eliot Williams last year. I blame this on Pat Riley, with the Knicks and his ridiculous Jordan rules. This is easy.

cruxer
01-18-2010, 12:09 PM
I don't know if that was his goal, but Smith had no chance to make a legit defensive play. From the angle he took, and given Mason's size, Smith knew he and Mason were going to collide. Doesn't matter whether Smith was "going for the ball."

I'd call it an intentional foul every time.

Here's an easy change that the NBA has made and CBB should adopt. Change the fouls from "intentional" to "flagrant." This change in labeling demonstrates that the official doesn't need to discern intent behind a foul, only the results of said foul. I'm obviously a Duke homer, so I'll use our guy as an example. I don't think Gerald Henderson intended to smack Beaker in the face and make him bleed like a stuck pig, but once that happened, some elevated level of foul call was warranted. In the NBA, that would have been a "flagrant 2."

We end up in semantic discussions about what a player's intent was, which usually can't be known, rather than just discussing the severity of the action, which is readily known. This would result in an increase of flagrant foul calls, and with automatic suspensions on flagrant 2s, would help clean up the game and discourage the Seth Greenburg's of the world.

I agree with earlier posters that the NBA game is much cleaner than it used to be. For those of you who haven't watched in a few years, it's a much more fluid game than the college game anymore.

-c

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 02:14 PM
The chasm between the game you watched and the one I watched may simply be too broad to breach. That was most certainly an intentional foul and deserved to be called as such. Pointing your fingers in the general direction of the ball doesn't absolve you from responsibility for controlling your body. Smith hurled himself at Mason with the goal of knocking the hell out of him first and foremost, and if he managed to get in the general vicinity of the ball as a result, all the better. The foul on Kyle should also have been called intentional. Or technical, or flagrant, or whatever the term of the week is. Making a minimal effort to "go for the ball" does not give you carte blanche to hit someone so hard that they end up parallel to the floor, regardless of Tim Brando's incessant babblings.

The NBA and the NHL both had this problem a decade or so ago, and they fixed it. Granted it took drastic measures to do it, but they did fix things and the product on the court/ice is now markedly better for it. The NCAA needs to do the same thing before someone breaks their neck.

I agree with you. We seem to have been watching two different games. I thought Smith did more than just "point his fingers at the ball", he went for the block and nearly got it. Smith has a knack for making impressive athletic blocks, as mentioned earlier in the game by the announcers, and IMO, he was merely trying to make another amazing block. He didn't, he caught too much body and fouled him, which is what happens on a lot of plays, but with two athletic guys high above the rim, the slightest of bumps becomes two players out of control. I didn't see the Kyle foul you're talking about, so I can't give an opinion. Was it in the 2nd half, I fell asleep at the end once we had a good lead. I'm getting old.

weezie
01-18-2010, 02:20 PM
The Euro game has an impact on this, too. How to stop the interference on an elevating defenseless player.
It stinks. The refs were so bad last night, and yes Ted Valentine, this means you as crew chief, that I actually wondered how Karl would have responded to the flagrants.

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 02:22 PM
I don't know if that was his goal, but Smith had no chance to make a legit defensive play. From the angle he took, and given Mason's size, Smith knew he and Mason were going to collide. Doesn't matter whether Smith was "going for the ball."

I'd call it an intentional foul every time.

There was a play earlier in the game when Ish Smith was chasing Nolan Smith on a fast break. That play looked as though Ish would not be able to make any type play but a foul, and he came away with a clean block. I was suprised, and so were the announcers, but then they made a comment about how many blocks he's been credited with this season for a guard his size.

devildeac
01-18-2010, 02:27 PM
The Euro game has an impact on this, too. How to stop the interference on an elevating defenseless player.
It stinks. The refs were so bad last night, and yes Ted Valentine, this means you as crew chief, that I actually wondered how Karl would have responded to the flagrants.

Daniel Ewing probably would have received the technical foul/s. And then, he would have suspended Gerald Henderson for our next game.:rolleyes:

Genedoc
01-18-2010, 02:28 PM
I agree with you. We seem to have been watching two different games. I thought Smith did more than just "point his fingers at the ball", he went for the block and nearly got it. Smith has a knack for making impressive athletic blocks, as mentioned earlier in the game by the announcers, and IMO, he was merely trying to make another amazing block. He didn't, he caught too much body and fouled him, which is what happens on a lot of plays, but with two athletic guys high above the rim, the slightest of bumps becomes two players out of control. I didn't see the Kyle foul you're talking about, so I can't give an opinion. Was it in the 2nd half, I fell asleep at the end once we had a good lead. I'm getting old.

He "nearly" got the block in the same way the Wake "nearly" won the game. The only route Smith had to the ball was through Mason. Through him. Not over or around as he'd done with Nolan earlier in the game, but through him. Like a DB knocking the WR down to make a play on the ball, it's a foul every time, and when you launch yourself at a defenseless player with no chance of NOT committing a dangerous foul, that can, should, and did result in a flagrant foul.

elvis14
01-18-2010, 02:28 PM
First, there is the rough play generally, especially bumping dribblers and pushing down low. That needs to be reigned in quite a bit. It's hard, especially on the blocks, because both players are pushing. It's not so hard to call the grabs and bumps away from the basket.

Second, there is the rough foul on the player in the air. I still don't understand why Villanova didn't get a flagrant foul when one of their players took out Eliot Williams last year. I blame this on Pat Riley, with the Knicks and his ridiculous Jordan rules. This is easy.

Right, I started this thread because of rough play in general. It's really been bothering me and I feel that the college game worse because of it. The problem stems from the way the NCAA tournament is called. What I see this year is the ACC changing the way games are called to match what is seen in the tournament. It's a shame and I still contend that it allows lesser teams to hang with better teams when they shouldn't (which might be the reason the NCAA tournament officials call games that way).


I agree with you. We seem to have been watching two different games.

The call was correct and I'm not sure what game you were watching either.

weezie
01-18-2010, 02:35 PM
Daniel Ewing probably would have received the technical foul/s. And then, he would have suspended Gerald Henderson for our next game.:rolleyes:


Touche. And still, Karl and Ted are considered the "cream" of a pitiful crop.

Genedoc
01-18-2010, 02:37 PM
Here's the pertinent part of the rule book:

29.2.d -- Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a
personal foul that, on the basis of an official's observation of the
act, may be purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the
severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
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 or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the
clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.

Please note the bold. As I stated earlier, and despite Brando's idiotic insistence to the contrary for the remainder of the game, making a play on the ball does not give you carte blanche to wreck someone in midair. If what Smith did to Mason isn't the very definition of "excessive, non-flagrant contact...while playing the ball", then nothing ever will be.

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 02:38 PM
The potential for injury is why the rule is written as it is. Yes, Ish made a play on the ball, and yes, he even might have hit the ball, but there was no way that he was going to be able to stop the score (clean or not) without endangering the offensive player. THAT, by definition, is a flagrant foul.

And that is what should have been called.

You are not allowed (at any level of basketball) to simply try to block the ball and endanger the opposition. If it were allowed, you would see plays like that every game, not just every Wake Forest game.

Well, we've all seen guys go up for a dunk, and get blocked, which causes the offensive player to go to the ground, sometimes hard, because they're high off the ground, and they experience an unexpected opposing force. Should that be an intentional foul too? Because in that case, the defensive player is trying to "simply block the ball" which would endager the opposition.

DoubleDuke Dad
01-18-2010, 02:42 PM
Well, we've all seen guys go up for a dunk, and get blocked, which causes the offensive player to go to the ground, sometimes hard, because they're high off the ground, and they experience an unexpected opposing force. Should that be an intentional foul too? Because in that case, the defensive player is trying to "simply block the ball" which would endager the opposition.

No, that has nothing to do with what happened. As Gendoc stated, unless Smith could suspend the laws of physics there was no way that he could block the shot without hitting Mason hard on the body. Thus it was intentional.

tele
01-18-2010, 02:49 PM
Here's what the coach said, "The way he landed saved him from having a broken wrist," Krzyzewski said. "That's why as we do the games, we have to always be careful about protecting an airborne player. You never want to see anybody get hurt. . . .We're not that deep anyway, but if you lose Kyle, you're losing one of the best players in the country."

Protecting an airborne player... there's an idea. I don't know where the idea came from that trying to make a play on the ball, or block a shot, means it isn't a foul. Or playing a "no layups" style of defense is ok if you act like you are going for a block.

Hard fouls when players are defenseless in the air can be called technical fouls and the fouling player can be ejected. That would put a stop to it.

Taking the legs out from under an airborne player used to always be considered a dirty play. There is no need for it in a basketball game.

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 02:49 PM
Here's the pertinent part of the rule book:

29.2.d -- Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a
personal foul that, on the basis of an official's observation of the
act, may be purposeful or reactionary and is not based solely on the
severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
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 or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the
clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.

Please note the bold. As I stated earlier, and despite Brando's idiotic insistence to the contrary for the remainder of the game, making a play on the ball does not give you carte blanche to wreck someone in midair. If what Smith did to Mason isn't the very definition of "excessive, non-flagrant contact...while playing the ball", then nothing ever will be.

So are defensive players not supposed to leave the floor unless they are 100% sure they can make a clean block and not touch the offensive player? That would leave a lot of uncontested shots and overall poor defense. There's already a league that plays slack D, it's called the NBA. No thank you.

Item#'s 1. and 2. make the rule unclear and leave it completely up to the ref's. Which is always a problem.

DevilBen02
01-18-2010, 03:02 PM
So are defensive players not supposed to leave the floor unless they are 100% sure they can make a clean block and not touch the offensive player? That would leave a lot of uncontested shots and overall poor defense. There's already a league that plays slack D, it's called the NBA. No thank you.

Item#'s 1. and 2. make the rule unclear and leave it completely up to the ref's. Which is always a problem.

I think that's where the term "excessive" comes in. Those who agree that the foul was intentional/flagrant notice that Ish was so far behind the play that to catch up and have a chance at stopping the dunk, he effectively catapaulted himself towards Mason. It isn't that he should have known that he would make contact, but that he should have known that he would impart a substantial force on the airborne player even if he could make a play on the ball.

Genedoc
01-18-2010, 03:06 PM
So are defensive players not supposed to leave the floor unless they are 100% sure they can make a clean block and not touch the offensive player? That would leave a lot of uncontested shots and overall poor defense. There's already a league that plays slack D, it's called the NBA. No thank you.

Item#'s 1. and 2. make the rule unclear and leave it completely up to the ref's. Which is always a problem.

I don't do well with false choice games. There's a tremendous amount of space on the continuum between the absurdity in bold above and the definition of an intentional foul. That huge amount of room on the continuum is what happens on 99% of fouls that are called in basketball.

#1 and #2 are pretty clear to me. Most of us who've watched basketball all of our lives know and understand excessive contact when we see it.

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 03:43 PM
I don't do well with false choice games. There's a tremendous amount of space on the continuum between the absurdity in bold above and the definition of an intentional foul. That huge amount of room on the continuum is what happens on 99% of fouls that are called in basketball.

#1 and #2 are pretty clear to me. Most of us who've watched basketball all of our lives know and understand excessive contact when we see it.

I wasn't offering to play a false choice game. The "absurtity in bold" was hypothetical hyperbole used for effect in response to CF-62's post about the responsibility of the defensive player to not go for the block if it might endanger the offensive player.

If #1 and #2 were so clear, why is it always a big topic of discussion when someone is called for an flagrant/inentional foul? Becuase everyone's interpretion of the rule is different, including the players, coaches and officials, which is why this and the block/charge call are always hot-button issues.

I played through grammar school, high school and in junior college, and have watched ACC basketball my entire life, and I too think I know excessive contact when I see it.

tbyers11
01-18-2010, 03:56 PM
Here is a picture of the foul from a good article (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/6831047/) about the Plumlees contribution to the game last night.

http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/assets/colleges/duke/2010/01/17/6829215/6829215-1263831566-240x180.jpg

Looks to me like Ish Smith had a reasonable chance to get the ball and was attempting to do so. The contact was quite hard so I don't have a big problem with the intentional foul call under the excessive contact provision, but I disagree with those who say that Smith launched himself at Mason with little chance of actually making a block.

Genedoc
01-18-2010, 04:00 PM
I wasn't offering to play a false choice game. The "absurtity in bold" was hypothetical hyperbole used for effect in response to CF-62's post about the responsibility of the defensive player to not go for the block if it might endanger the offensive player.

If #1 and #2 were so clear, why is it always a big topic of discussion when someone is called for an flagrant/inentional foul? Becuase everyone's interpretion of the rule is different, including the players, coaches and officials, which is why this and the block/charge call are always hot-button issues.

I played through grammar school, high school and in junior college, and have watched ACC basketball my entire life, and I too think I know excessive contact when I see it.

A major contributing factor to it becoming a hot-button issue is widespread ignorance of what the rule actually states among fans and announcers alike. Same with block/charge. It's Brando's job, and he was 100%, dead solid wrong in his protests. All he kept repeating was "he was going for the ball!", which as I illustrated in quoting the rule book, is irrelevant if excessive contact is made. You hear the same thing all the time regarding people's perception of blocks and charges - "His feet were set, that must be a charge!"

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 04:01 PM
Here is a picture of the foul from a good article (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/6831047/) about the Plumlees contribution to the game last night.

http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/assets/colleges/duke/2010/01/17/6829215/6829215-1263831566-240x180.jpg

Looks to me like Ish Smith had a reasonable chance to get the ball and was attempting to do so. The contact was quite hard so I don't have a big problem with the intentional foul call under the excessive contact provision, but I disagree with those who say that Smith launched himself at Mason with little chance of actually making a block.

A picture is worth a thousand words......which I've already wasted. I could've used this image a couple of hours ago. ;)

I'm not saying it wasn't a hard foul, but I just didn't think it warranted an intentional call. I think it was completely incidental, I just don't think you can penalize a player for trying to make a good play to help his team. Nothing dirty about it.

Genedoc
01-18-2010, 04:05 PM
Here is a picture of the foul from a good article (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/6831047/) about the Plumlees contribution to the game last night.

http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/assets/colleges/duke/2010/01/17/6829215/6829215-1263831566-240x180.jpg

Looks to me like Ish Smith had a reasonable chance to get the ball and was attempting to do so. The contact was quite hard so I don't have a big problem with the intentional foul call under the excessive contact provision, but I disagree with those who say that Smith launched himself at Mason with little chance of actually making a block.

If both players were moving in the same vectors, Smith may have had a chance to get a block without crushing Mason. However, they weren't moving in the same vector. Smith was moving completely perpendicular to Mason. The only opportunity to get near the ball was through Mason's body, with the results being completely predictable. Smith did have a chance to block the ball. He did not have a chance to block it without also wiping Mason out.

MChambers
01-18-2010, 04:06 PM
Here is a picture of the foul from a good article (http://www.wralsportsfan.com/voices/blogpost/6831047/) about the Plumlees contribution to the game last night.

http://wwwcache.wralsportsfan.com/assets/colleges/duke/2010/01/17/6829215/6829215-1263831566-240x180.jpg

Looks to me like Ish Smith had a reasonable chance to get the ball and was attempting to do so. The contact was quite hard so I don't have a big problem with the intentional foul call under the excessive contact provision, but I disagree with those who say that Smith launched himself at Mason with little chance of actually making a block.

The problem with the picture is that it doesn't capture Smith's horizontal motion thru Plumlee. The only way he gets the block is by going through Plumlee. If Smith had been in front of Plumlee, in good position, of course it would have been a legitimate play.

Genedoc
01-18-2010, 04:08 PM
A picture is worth a thousand words......which I've already wasted. I could've used this image a couple of hours ago. ;)

I'm not saying it wasn't a hard foul, but I just didn't think it warranted an intentional call. I think it was completely incidental, I just don't think you can penalize a player for trying to make a good play to help his team. Nothing dirty about it.

Luckily the rule book doesn't require either divination of intent or dirtiness to warrant an intentional foul. All that's required is excessive contact regardless of intent or effort at making a play on the ball. It's not a good play when your only possibility of making said play will endanger the opponent.

left_hook_lacey
01-18-2010, 04:15 PM
A major contributing factor to it becoming a hot-button issue is widespread ignorance of what the rule actually states among fans and announcers alike. Same with block/charge. It's Brando's job, and he was 100%, dead solid wrong in his protests. All he kept repeating was "he was going for the ball!", which as I illustrated in quoting the rule book, is irrelevant if excessive contact is made. You hear the same thing all the time regarding people's perception of blocks and charges - "His feet were set, that must be a charge!"

I agree with you 100% on the block/charge explanation from the "experts" in the game. A defensive players "feet being set" is not the be all and end all to determine if it's a charge or not, although most announcers would have us think otherwise. I think Jay Bilas gives the best in-game explanation's of that rule as it pertains to the play at hand, but that's a topic for another day, another thread.

I guess our difference is in what we perceive as "excessive contact while playing the ball." You think it was excessive, I do not.

Thanks for posting the rule and the provisions by the way.

cruxer
01-18-2010, 07:36 PM
Luckily the rule book doesn't require either divination of intent or dirtiness to warrant an intentional foul. All that's required is excessive contact regardless of intent or effort at making a play on the ball. It's not a good play when your only possibility of making said play will endanger the opponent.

I'll repeat my contention that the "intentional" foul should be renamed the "flagrant" foul as in the NBA. Regardless of what the rulebook actually says, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that an "intentional foul" is called based on the intent of the perpetrator. Flagrant foul is descriptive of the act, not the intent behind the act (which can't really be known).

-c

elvis14
01-18-2010, 08:42 PM
There are two issues being discussed in this thread:


First, there is the rough play generally, especially bumping dribblers and pushing down low. That needs to be reigned in quite a bit. It's hard, especially on the blocks, because both players are pushing. It's not so hard to call the grabs and bumps away from the basket.

Second, there is the rough foul on the player in the air. I still don't understand why Villanova didn't get a flagrant foul when one of their players took out Eliot Williams last year. I blame this on Pat Riley, with the Knicks and his ridiculous Jordan rules. This is easy.

The first issue is the topic of this thread. The second is not (even if it is related) and has been beat to death. As the OP, I'd like to ask if we could get this thread back on topic. The second topic is being discussed at length in the post game thread if you really have to beat that dead horse. Let's just be thankful that Mason and Kyle are still playing on Wednesday.

cf-62
01-18-2010, 09:33 PM
I wasn't offering to play a false choice game. The "absurtity in bold" was hypothetical hyperbole used for effect in response to CF-62's post about the responsibility of the defensive player to not go for the block if it might endanger the offensive player.

If #1 and #2 were so clear, why is it always a big topic of discussion when someone is called for an flagrant/inentional foul? Becuase everyone's interpretion of the rule is different, including the players, coaches and officials, which is why this and the block/charge call are always hot-button issues.

I played through grammar school, high school and in junior college, and have watched ACC basketball my entire life, and I too think I know excessive contact when I see it.

There's a big quote that's popular these days. It is what it is. And what last night's foul WAS is, by definition, a flagrant foul. Why? Because the force generated by Ish Smith caused an offensive player to hit the ground and cause some sort of hip injury.

It doesn't matter if Ish was TRYING to hurt Mason, or that he MIGHT be able to divine Shane Battier and hit only the ball. What matters is that he DID hit Mason with sufficient force to cause the kid to hit the ground sideways, thus the call.

Your use of the absurd to somehow say that I am absurd (saying it's not okay to attempt to block dunks), along with your 15 posts prior to last night, make me think you have something else to prove.

Also, to your second question -- YES, based on the actual stated rule, it IS the responsibility of the defender to NOT endanger an offensive player with some stupid all or nothing foul.

diveonthefloor
01-18-2010, 09:47 PM
1. Causing excessive, non-flagrant contact with an opponent while
playing the ball;

I can't even believe there's room for argument in the case of Ish vs Mason.

The rule IS what the rule IS.

That call was one of the very few that the crew Sunday night got right.

(Too bad their pathetic calls for much of the rest of the game caused many near-miss major injuries.)

Valentine used to be a decent ref. Now he's just another Lenny Wertz.

Chitowndevil
01-19-2010, 12:25 PM
Just for the record (and because several folks have commented that the NCAA definition of 'intentional foul' is very ambiguous) there are a separate set of 'guidelines' for intentional personal fouls in Appendix III of the NCAA rules:


Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:
a. Any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball
or a player is an intentional personal foul.
b. Running into the back of a player who has the ball, wrapping the arm(s)
around a player and grabbing a player around the torso or legs are
intentional personal fouls.
c. Grabbing a player’s arm or body while initially attempting to gain
control by playing the ball directly is an intentional personal foul.
d. Grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an
intentional personal foul.
e. Undue roughness used to stop the game clock is an intentional personal
foul and, if severe, should be called a flagrant personal foul.
f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.

Note that, in both the definition of 'intentional foul', and in these guidelines, a player who causes "excessive contact" while playing the ball can be called for an intentional foul. I can give Brando a bit of a pass on this one, because at several points, including a reference chart in Appendix IV of the rules, an intentional foul is broadly referred to as "an act that is not a
legitimate attempt to play the ball or player". But he did rant a little too long on this one, esp. considering the call was correct under the rules.

(nb. I've posted similar comments elsewhere, so sorry for the repetition, but this topic has come up in several threads.)