Originally posted by col-pul: "David Pierce, a 30-year veteran of the Tri-Cities Sports Officials Association, took issue with Christenson's contention, saying the referees did their job during the game. "There were no problems and no fights. It's getting painted as flagrant fouls or intentional fouls, but it doesn't have anything to do with that," Pierce said. "The guy took a camera and jaded it. He didn't show the whole game. He showed six plays."
He's entitled to his opinion. He's in damage control mode in my opinion. Just because there isn't a fight doesn't mean you you did your job. I'm not influenced by the repeated slo-mo replays or his commentary. I know what I would have called in each situation the first time I saw each play.
#1, As it's the first foul, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt and go with common. But grouping it with the others, I've have to say it's excessive contact and therefore intentional.
#2, I have a foul on Red 20 for pushing before the common foul by white 42.
#3, flagrant foul. This is an elbow to the head that was obviously intentionally thrown.
#4, easy intentional foul.
#5, at the very least, this is an intentional foul for excessive contact. Many on the national officiating boards felt it was flagrant.
#6, common foul. Nothing here.
Basd on fouls 1, 3, and 5, the player should have been dealt with as he was intentionally trying to injure other players with his play. That's not basketball.
I read where the AD said you could take game film from anyone's game and find the same type of contact. BS! I've never worked a game where I tolerated a player like #34 going after opponents with hard fouls.