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.

 

The intentional foul does not differentiate between offense and defense.

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

 

No chance, we all know none of the officials read this crap.

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

 

Don't need glasses when you have perfect vision. I can't help it that others are seeing it wrong.

How exactly would you word such a rule?

I'd word it an offensive Intentional Foul. Just like a charge, an offensive player can not lower his shoulder into a defender to force contact when the defender is not giving up his position. Just like when a defender fouls a player and it is called intentional when he isn't going for the ball etc. this should be the same on the offensive player. Flops should also be a technical in the rule book. I know they aren't rules but they should be.

 

That was about as blatant as you can get and unfortunately he has gotten away with just that and why should he change? He's not been forced to change and he gets the calls. I would do the exact same if I were him.

No chance, we all know none of the officials read this crap.

 

It's not the officials, it's the other guys.

Don't need glasses when you have perfect vision. I can't help it that others are seeing it wrong.

Your Tom Brady head band is too tight.

The intentional foul does not differentiate between offense and defense.

I've never seen an offensive intentional foul called, have you?

 

Here is the definition I found for intentional foul

 

Intentional foul: A foul that occurs when a player makes illegal contact with an opposing player without intending to get the ball.

 

How can an offensive player be called for it if they already have the ball?

 

I think the rule needs to be changed and that should be an intentional foul.

 

Flagrant foul could be called on the offense and maybe that is what should of happened in this case.

 

Flagrant Foul – Unnecessary or excessive contact against an opponent.

That describes this play to a tee. It was deffinatly unnecessary AND excessive contact made by Nick.

Smart offensive play, bad defense. It happens. Looked to me like the defensive player did come down slightly toward the offensive player based on where his feet were when he left his feet. I think it was the right call.

Don't need glasses when you have perfect vision. I can't help it that others are seeing it wrong.

 

You still haven't explained how he was going forward when his body was coming down in the same spot that it left from.

It's not the officials, it's the other guys.

 

They don't read it either, the coaches don't, the refs, don't, the KHSAA, etc...

They don't read it either, the coaches don't, the refs, don't, the KHSAA, etc...

:walk:

Smart offensive play, bad defense. It happens. Looked to me like the defensive player did come down slightly toward the offensive player based on where his feet were when he left his feet. I think it was the right call.

 

His left foot was at the college 3 line when he jumped and was coming down on or inside the high school 3 line.

Excessive, non-flagrant contact can be ruled an intentional foul. An intentional foul can be ruled a personal foul. It does not have to be a technical foul.

 

With that I ask, was the contact created by Ruthsatz and was it excessive? If yes, it could be called an intentional foul.

This just in........The Oscar for Best Actor in a Basketball Game, Nick Ruthsatz Covington Catholic. :ylsuper:

 

And I'm being very complimentary with this. EVERYBODY knows his M.O., you need to be prepared for it and play accordingly. And yes, I'd take him on my team any day of the week.

 

Carry on boys.

His left foot was at the college 3 line when he jumped and was coming down on or inside the high school 3 line.

 

Looked like his right foot came out from where it was. Still looks to me like he came out, however slightly.