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.

 

Reads like a bad rule.

I had yet to weigh in/ give my thoughts on this as I was hoping someone would have a video. That is me in the red and white pullover right where the play happened. Let me also say that I have been a referee. My immediate reaction was that this was an offensive foul. Based on where i was sitting, Pangallo would have come down on the court without making contact with Ruthsatz and the Ruthsatz initiated all the contact by lowering his shoulder and jumping into the defender. This is my mind would have constituted an offensive foul. This is just my interpretation of the play fwiw.

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.

 

I hear what you are saying. However, under the rules, excessive, non-flagrant contact could be called an intentional foul. I believe Ruthsatz was excessive in creating the contact with the way he lunged into Pangallo.

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

 

Now I know why you and I argue over the eyeball test. Yours are bad.

Reads like a bad rule.

 

Actually, the rule is quite simple. If the defensive player has established legal guarding position and is not coming forward at the point of contact he can't be called for a foul. It doesn't matter what the offensive player does or doesn't do.

 

The only possible call other than the foul on Pangallo was a player control foul. The official felt Pangallo was coming forward (and even in slow motion it's hard to tell) so it couldn't be a PC foul.

I guess it's hard for me to see a offensive guy launch himself into a defender like a missile throw up a out of control shot and you call a foul on the defender the rule needs to change. Heck all coaches should teach their players to do this at a young age get the call every time.

Now I know why you and I argue over the eyeball test. Yours are bad.

 

Yours have clearly deteriorated with old age. It happens.

As I said in the other thread unfortunately it will most of the time always be called on the defender. I also said how Nick makes a living out of those type of calls. In this case however I think it should of been called on Nick. He took 2 steps and lowered his shoulder right into the defender on purpose and should of been called a charge. It's just another reason why that is a stupid rule the refs go by. It should of been called a charge. Another change I wish they would make in the rules is this...there are intentional fouls on defenders, why isn't there an intentional foul for the offensive player. This would be the perfect reason why there should be.

 

This should of been called an offensive foul period, but the rules favor the offense and the officials very rarely call it on the offensive player. Nick, as I've said has made a living off of lowering his shoulder when he drives the lane forcing contact and gets the call 90% of the time. It's something I don't think he will get away with at the DI level but it's served him good in high school.

 

I would also like to add that Nick is the king of the Hollywood flops too. He displayed his acting on this call also.

Actually, the rule is quite simple. If the defensive player has established legal guarding position and is not coming forward at the point of contact he can't be called for a foul. It doesn't matter what the offensive player does or doesn't do.

 

The only possible call other than the foul on Pangallo was a player control foul. The official felt Pangallo was coming forward (and even in slow motion it's hard to tell) so it couldn't be a PC foul.

 

Okay, really bad rule.

I had yet to weigh in/ give my thoughts on this as I was hoping someone would have a video. That is me in the red and white pullover right where the play happened. Let me also say that I have been a referee. My immediate reaction was that this was an offensive foul. Based on where i was sitting, Pangallo would have come down on the court without making contact with Ruthsatz and the Ruthsatz initiated all the contact by lowering his shoulder and jumping into the defender. This is my mind would have constituted an offensive foul. This is just my interpretation of the play fwiw.

 

As an official you know that "coming down on the court without making contact with Ruthsatz" is irrelevant.

 

The rule is very clear. If the defender is coming forward and makes contact it's always a foul on the defender. So the only debate here is if Pangallo maintained verticality.

 

You also know that the defender doesn't get bailed out just because the shooter initiated contact. It's all about LGP.

I guess it's hard for me to see a offensive guy launch himself into a defender like a missile throw up a out of control shot and you call a foul on the defender the rule needs to change. Heck all coaches should teach their players to do this at a young age get the call every time.

 

How exactly would you word such a rule?

Okay, really bad rule.

 

You're right. You're a football guy.

Yours have clearly deteriorated with old age. It happens.

 

How thick are your glasses? Everyone else in this thread sees it differently.

Spoken like a true Colonel!

 

Says the guy who voted for an intentional foul. :lol:

If we gripe about it enough here, it'll be next year's "point of emphasis" at the officials meeting.