Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Texas Aggie
The committee did not say, "fouling to prevent a layup is an accepted coaching strategy." If they did, I might have taken the same issue with it as I did here. However, here the committee is emphasizing that intentional fouls should be called and its been a POI forever. Yet they are saying that intentional fouls are essentially acceptable, at least as a strategy. If that's not inconsistent, I don't know what is.
How do you "properly" commit a rules infraction where "properly" is defined by those who originally wrote the rules, intending on infractions being illegal and penalized? That's the issue I have here.
In football, they changed intentional grounding rules to create a balance of play. 15 years ago (or whenever), a QB couldn't spike the ball to stop the clock. Now they can. But it was a rule change. The football committee didn't say, "you can properly stop the clock by doing this, which is an acceptable coaching strategy, but it is still a rules infraction and will be penalized."
|
So if I am reading you correctly, your problem is the use of the word "Intentional" and that fouling to stop the clock is done "intentionally", even tho (as Dan said) other fouls comitted during the game are also done "intentionally"...an Intentional foul is one which is a non-basketball play, a foul away from the ball to stop the clock, or one where the contact is severe, etc...a foul on the ball handler, making an attempt on the ball, may be done on purpose, but it does not fit the requirements of Intentional...and the use of a foul late in the game to stop the clock has been around forever.
I guess I really am not understanding why you are so bent about this one, TexasAggie...