Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rainmaker
Jeff, the point is that there are now two different types of fouls that have one name, one signal and one penalty, and it can be difficult for coaches to comprehend that concept. It would be nice to have two different names for the types of fouls with two different signals, even if the penalty was the same. Use intentional foul with the X for the not-hard fouls that are just to stop the clock, or just to take away an advantage -- grabbing the jersey, the bear hug, the shove in the back. THen have a different signal that would mean an "Excessive Foul" or a "Hard Foul" which would apply to the fouls that weren't necessarily intentional, but were just excessive contact. The penalties could be the same for both, just as the penalties are the same for the different kinds of personal fouls. THis would be a level of foul between yr basic average every day foul, and the technical and flagrant foul. I think it's a really good idea, myself.
|
Disagree completely. There's absolutely no need to change what we're using now. The biggest problem is that some people, including some officials, just don't understand the present terminology being used. There's only one element needed for an intentional foul and it's been defined the same way in the rules forever to include that single element. A foul is deemed intentional if it neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Period. All you are doing now is talking about the different ways that somebody can do exactly that--illegally take away an opponent's obvious advantage. If you break it down further, as you suggest, then imo all you're gonna do is just confuse everybody further also. Whether it's excessive contact, reaching out and grabbing an arm or just giving a tug on the shirt, all of these situations are doing the exact same thing that is already defined in the rule book as being an intentional foul-- illegally taking an obvious advantage away from another player. That makes them all intentional fouls under the current rule book definition. All adding further language would do is just further confuse people.
You and the others are overthinking this to death imo.