I've been in this argument a few times already today... I say yes. What do you guys think?

Yes. I also think the undercut of Rush at the beginning should have been an intentional.

I can't make up my mind.

Yes. I also think the undercut of Rush at the beginning should have been an intentional.

 

I agree on both.

 

However, I think they should get rid of the intentional foul all together. Its use is extremely inconsistent. (Jasper foul vs Bliss foul anyone?).

 

Its not called when fouls are obviously "intentional" like fouling at the end of the game, nor is it called for "dangerous" fouls (like last night). From all I can tell, its only called when the ref is in a bad mood.

I think he slammed the ball out of disgust for hisself in which case I say no.

I somehow missed this. If the ball didn't come back up to him, then it should have been a technical foul. Doesn't matter as to why he did it.

I think he slammed the ball out of disgust for hisself in which case I say no.

 

He did slam the ball out of disgust for himself, but he also slammed it about 25-30 feet in the air - which should have resulted in a technical.

Watch the 1:40-1:50 point of this video and then tell me he didn't deserve a technical:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_J9kL1b5GA

By the rules yes. In that moment of the game, no.

 

I know I know you have to call it consistent every game but thats a real tough spot to put an official in.

 

He did it because he was angry with himself, he wasnt arguing with the refs. If I remember correctly, the ball actually bounced off his foot and went out of bounds. Had it not hit his foot, he would have caught the ball anyway.

 

Situations like these are why you couldn't pay me enough money to ref a game.

Definitely should have been a technical.

By the rules yes. In that moment of the game, no.

 

I know I know you have to call it consistent every game but thats a real tough spot to put an official in.

 

He did it because he was angry with himself, he wasnt arguing with the refs. If I remember correctly, the ball actually bounced off his foot and went out of bounds. Had it not hit his foot, he would have caught the ball anyway.

 

Situations like these are why you couldn't pay me enough money to ref a game.

 

Watch that video. I don't think it hit his foot at all. I think he slammed it hard against the floor and it bounced way up over the shot clock.

Definitely should have been a technical.

 

I just watched it again to confirm and I still say it should have been a technical. :thumb:

Actually, scratch my entire first post in this thread. After watching the video, YES, he should have been t'd up. No doubt about it. I didnt realize he threw the ball down that hard. What a dumb decision.

Watch that video. I don't think it hit his foot at all. I think he slammed it hard against the floor and it bounced way up over the shot clock.

 

I agree with you after watching the video. I didn't realize during the moment that he threw the ball that hard.

Actually, scratch my entire first post in this thread. After watching the video, YES, he should have been t'd up. No doubt about it. I didnt realize he threw the ball down that hard. What a dumb decision.

 

When I was watching the game live, I didn't get a great look at it. After seeing that video, I think that was very stupid and could have went down in history with great blunders like Chris Webber calling a T.O.