[Nevadaref]

I haven't seen the new Rules Book in print yet, but it sounds like they have changed the definition of an intentional foul.

The current wording is:
4-19
ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


What is posted on the website is:

The committee has revised the rule to improve understanding. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


The current wording makes the mere fact that the foul is designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting enough for it to meet the definition of an intentional foul. Notice the use of the word "or" in the sentence contruction.

The revised paragraph uses a different construction, which splits the criteria into two sentences. The first tells us that a foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage shall be deemed an intentional foul. However, the second sentence groups the stopping of the clock or keeping it from starting together with contact away from the ball or not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball. This means that BOTH of these elements must be present together in order for the foul to meet the definition and be deemed an intentional foul. In other words, the mere fact that the foul is designed to stop the clock by itself is no longer sufficient for the foul to be intentional. The foul must also be committed away from the ball or not be a legitimate attempt to play the ball. However, a foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position need not also be designed to stop the clock; it is enough in and of itself to qualify as intentional.

This is a big change. I truly wonder if the committee really did change the wording of the definiton because without doing that, they can say whatever they want on the website, but the rule hasn't changed. I'm anxious to see the new book.

[Edited by Nevadaref on May 13th, 2005 at 05:04 AM]