[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course this is entirely subjective and everyone has slightly different parameters for calling an intentional foul.

Early returns from IAABO members are favoring a common foul.

Oddly, one IAABO member makes a comment defending a common foul call but still describes the contact "hard". Probably a when in Rome thing, but here in my little corner of Connecticut we call "hard" contact an excessive contact intentional foul. We even have an unauthorized signal for excessive "hard" contact intentional fouls, after displaying cross over head, bring both arms down hard to sides. We're even instructed to say, "Hard foul", when displaying the signal.

Other comments defending a common foul call describe a lack of a premeditated intent to harm, which is not relevant.

...

Lack of Intent to harm is no more irrelevant than how "hard" the foul was.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk