Guys I understand it may not be intentional by the book.

 

What I want everyone to understand is I am a third party observer with no dog in the fight and Ruthsatz clearly and intentionally lunged into Pangallo.

 

Please tell me the refs didn't call a foul on Pangallo!?

The intentional foul angle is interesting. There is zero doubt in my mind that Ruthsatz did intentionally create the contact. I have never seen that called an intentional foul, but that clearly was intentional by Ruthsatz.

 

No question about it.

It doesn't come close to meeting the definition of an intentional foul.

 

It was a horrible call and change the game for pangallo. That was his 3rd foul had to sit for 5mins in the third Q change the the game IMO.

No dog at all in this fight, but watching the replay, that clearly looks like a defensive foul.

Guys I understand it may not be intentional by the book.

 

What I want everyone to understand is I am a third party observer with no dog in the fight and Ruthsatz clearly and intentionally lunged into Pangallo.

 

Please tell me the refs didn't call a foul on Pangallo!?

 

I think you know the answer to that already :lol2:

No dog at all in this fight, but watching the replay, that clearly looks like a defensive foul.

 

How is it clearly a defensive foul?

The intentional foul angle is interesting. There is zero doubt in my mind that Ruthsatz did intentionally create the contact. I have never seen that called an intentional foul, but that clearly was intentional by Ruthsatz.

 

Definitely agree with this.

The intentional foul angle is interesting. There is zero doubt in my mind that Ruthsatz did intentionally create the contact. I have never seen that called an intentional foul, but that clearly was intentional by Ruthsatz.

 

There would be at least a dozen intentional fouls called each game if the rules were enforced like this.

 

Down 2 with 10 seconds to go, other team has the ball....Can't foul, because by your logic it's an intentional, thus 2 and the ball.

How is it clearly a defensive foul?

 

Didn't go straight up, twisted his body in the air.

After watching this, I can say that my first look at it in real time, it was a foul on Pangallo. So if i would have had a whistle, that is what I would have called. After seeing it in slo-mo throughout the video, it really was Ruthsatz that created the contact and was the agressor. Now that may not make it a foul on Ruthsatz, but it is clear what he did. I cannot fault the officials because the initial look to me was the call that was made. This call is made this way the vast, vast majority of the time as stated.

After watching this' date=' I can say that my first look at it in real time, it was a foul on Pangallo. So if i would have had a whistle, that is what I would have called. After seeing it in slo-mo throughout the video, it really was Ruthsatz that created the contact and was the agressor. Now that may not make it a foul on Ruthsatz, but it is clear what he did. I cannot fault the officials because the initial look to me was the call that was made. This call is made this way the vast, vast majority of the time as stated.[/quote']

 

This.

I saw it live & have watched the video replay. It's a very difficult call to make one way or the other.

 

At the time, I thought it was the right call. After watching the replay several times, I have no problem with the call as it was made in real-time. With that said, it could have easily been a "no call", too. I don't see much justification for an offensive foul and absolutely no justification for an intentional foul on either party. All in all, a good play by Ruthsatz and a bad break for Pangallo.

Guys I understand it may not be intentional by the book.

 

What I want everyone to understand is I am a third party observer with no dog in the fight and Ruthsatz clearly and intentionally lunged into Pangallo.

 

Please tell me the refs didn't call a foul on Pangallo!?

 

 

Yes, he intentionally jumped into Pangallo. There is no rule against such a move. We see if every time an inside player gets a player up in the air with a head fake. He then jumps into the defender's body to draw the foul. The only differences here are a)outside vs inside and b)how far he jumped.

I saw it live & have watched the video replay. It's a very difficult call to make one way or the other.

 

At the time, I thought it was the right call. After watching the replay several times, I have no problem with the call as it was made in real-time. With that said, it could have easily been a "no call", too. I don't see much justification for an offensive foul and absolutely no justification for an intentional foul on either party. All in all, a good play by Ruthsatz and a bad break for Pangallo.

 

Spoken like a true Colonel!

Didn't go straight up, twisted his body in the air.

 

It appears to me in the video he goes straight up. One foot at the time of his jump was at the college 3 point line as it's coming down it's going to land at the high school 3 line. Obviously he twisted but I don't think he went at Ruthsatz.