Quote:
Originally posted by regas14
Jurassic - my attempt to better understand the practical nature of this situation has not been improved based on your own contradictions:
IN YOUR FIRST RESPONSE TO ME YOU SAID:
"Note the part of R4-19-3 that says the act may or may NOT be premeditated and that it ISN'T based the severity of the contact"
AND YOU ALSO POINT OUT THIS FACT:
(2)Trying to hurt/punish an opponent is a FLAGRANT foul. Completely different animal, and defined as such in the rules.
THEN YOU RESPOND TO CHUCK WITH THIS:
"If the defender puts a dribbler in the 3rd. row while making a "token swipe at the ball", then are you trying to tell me that's a "non-intentional foul"?"
|
Regas, you're going to be pretty frustrated if you start looking for contradictions in JR's posts. There is no contradiction among the three quotes you list above. The only thing that may make you think there are contradictions is your lack of familiarity with the basic definitions in the rules. This is not an insult or a put-down, nor am I pissed off. But to understand everything that JR has said above, you need to read and understand the definitions of different types of fouls in 4-19. Until you know the definitions of "intentional foul" and "flagrant foul", it doesn't do you much good to try to pick apart JR's posts.
An intentional foul does NOT have to be premeditated. It does NOT require excessive to be called. If there is excessive force, but no premeditation, then the foul should be intentional. (This is the case of stopping the clock by putting the kid into the 3rd row, or of what Hubie Brown calls "the hard foul".) If there is premeditation, but not excessive force, then it could still be intentional. (This is the case of a bear hug, when there is no attempt to play the ball.) In no situation should an intentional foul be called if there is intent to injure or harm the opponent.
Why?
Because if there is intent to injure, that's a flagrant foul. It's a different type of foul, separate from intentionals.
Does that help to sort out the putative contradictions?
Quote:
|
WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON APPROACHING THE POINT OF USING FLAGRANT FOUL AND INTENTIONAL FOUL IN INAPPROPRIATE CONTEXT.
|
You may not be the only one, but I promise you that JR is not using them in an inappropriate context.
Quote:
|
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN YOUR MIND SEVERITY IS A CONSIDERATION.
|
An intentional foul may be called if there is excessive contact, even while playing the ball. So sometimes, severity is a consideration in whether or not an intentional is called. If a kid blocks a lay-up but then follows thru by taking the shooter to the floor, that's an intentional foul, even tho he was playing the ball.
Quote:
ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS YOU POINT OUT THAT THE RULE STATES:
"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting"
WHICH YOU CLAIM CONTRADICTS MY SAYING:
"Based on what you're telling me in this post, you would call an intentional foul anytime a foul is committed at the end of the game by the trailing team if their intent is to commit a foul to stop the clock."
TO WHICH YOU RESPOND WITH:
"I sureashell also NEVER said that I would always call an intentional foul under those circumstances."
|
Look, the bottom line is that calling an intentional foul in that end-of-game situation is like getting a guilty verdict. You want to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. If the kid plays the ball -- and doesn't do anything else excessive (like grabbing a jersey, putting a kid in the 3rd row, knock down the ballhandler from behind) -- then that's reasonable doubt. Even tho everybody knows that stopping the clock benefits the defense, if he plays the ball, then we give the defender the benefit of the doubt.
I hope that helps a little. And I hope I posted before JR read your post about his "contradictions".