Worst prediction I've made ever, when I turned to gecko jr and stated, "Mizzou is done, I think they look worn out", that's when they were down 3 with about 3:30 to go. Yeah, that's an eternity but it seemed like Illinois had control. Then, "bam" all hell breaks loose. What do people think about the intentional foul call...? Even live it didn't look like the Illini dude made that much contact. It seems like even less in slo mo. Illinois bench technical didn't help them one bit.
Didn't like the call. Tight game, with neither side able to take over, and then the officials stepped in and did just that.
He didn't shove him as hard as he could, I grant you that. And it's possible that another official might not have made the call. However, granted that the call was made, your argument also lacks a relationship to amounts charged for certain Oriental drinks.The rule states: (Rule 10) Art. 2. Personal foul. A personal foul shall be a foul committed by a player that involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live. ... 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: ... 3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score... The guy went up right away with the signal. There was no question in his mind that the foul was intentional. If that's what he thought, he was justified in calling it and he shouldn't have ignored it.
I think the issue is that there isn't a single ref who actually calls "intentional fouls" the way that point d is worded. And if a ref ever did call an intentional any time a player might have fouled on purpose, players and fans would all be pretty upset. And most fouls are "reactionary", I don't even know what the point of that part of the rule is.
The ref's entitled to call intentional fouls late in the game, but the ref that does will not work again. But that's irrelevant, as what Tisdale did is specifically mentioned as something that can be an intentional foul. He should have let the guy go... the game wouldn't have gotten out of hand, and Tisdale wouldn't have fouled out... not then, anyway.
It was a blatant intentional foul, it wasn't particularly close to NOT being an intentional foul, and it in no way influenced the outcome of the game. What is the point of the argument?
