[rwest]

Jimgolf,

A foul when not playing the ball to stop the clock is by definition an intentional foul. There is no such thing as a strategic foul, at least not from an officiating stand point. Can't find it in the book. The foul described meets the criteria for an intentional foul. The severity of the foul is not a requirement, with one exception. You can call an intentional foul when the player is playing the ball if the contact is severe enough.

Having said all this, last year was my first year officiating. I only called one intentional foul: a push from behind on a break-away lay-up. In another game I had a pushing foul late in the 4th period that I did not call intentional. The player was definitely not playing the ball and was attempting to stop the clock. The push was not severe. I'm thinking I should have called an intentional foul. The coach was asking why I didn't call it. My partner came over and told the coach it was not an intentional foul. I don't remember if we discussed it after the game or not, but I'm now wondering if he bailed me out. He's an experienced official (he's our JV assignor) and maybe he saw the "deer-in-the-headlight" look in my eyes. To be honest I was not thinking in terms of intentional or not when I called the foul. I know I should have, but I'm being transparent.

So my question is this, by the strict letter of the law, this was an intentional foul: not playing the ball and designed to stop the clock. Why then do some officials not want to call this intentional? Should I have in the case I stated above?

This even goes deeper to should I be a strictly by the book official or by the intent of the rules, which sometimes means not going by the letter of the law.

Any thoughts/suggestions?

Thanks!
Randall