regas, you're asking good questions. Jurassic just got out of bed on the wrong side this decade.
The statements Jurassic makes are not really inconcsistent. They are seperate and independant aspects of an intentional foul.
An intentional foul can be had in a few ways:
- A foul that is designed to stop the clock
- A foul that takes away an opponents obvious advantage
- Excessive contact
In #1, it is premeditated but may or may not be severe.
In #2, it may or may not be premeditated and may or may not involve excessive contact but would be an intentional foul.
In #3, the contact is excessive but without intent to injure and not so overboard that it would be fagrant. This is provided as a middle ground between a common foul and a flagrant.
When the player makes a play for the ball and fouls with minor contact, we'd have to read his mind to know if it is deliberate or not...designed to stop the clock. The benefit of the doubt is given to the defender if it is possible that it was a play on the ball that happened to result in a foul. If the same play had occured in the 2nd quarter, would it have been an intentional...never. When the same thing happens with excessive contact, we no longer have to read their mind...it's covered under a different part of the rule. If they just shove a player in the back, again, it's obvious.
In the end, what you usually see on the floor is some officials just don't have the guts to call it for what it is. In some game situations, it may be acceptable to overlook the intential nature of a foul that would normally be an intential foul.
[Edited by Camron Rust on Jun 29th, 2005 at 03:47 PM]