Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sseltser
1)The idea for new names is because players and coaches, contrary to popular belief , don't really read the rule book(  ) so they don't know what NFHS says an intentional foul is. They think (and adamantly at that) that an intentional foul must have some sort of 'intent.'
2)The rule says excessive contact without intent to foul can also be deemed intentional. This past sentence is self-contradicting in many of the posters eyes, so that is the reason for bringing up new terminology to lighten the confusion. |
1) Yup, and that's why they question every single intentional foul usually. And all you have to do is tell them that the foul illegally took an advantage away from their opponent. End of explanation, unless you want to add
how the advantage was illegally taken away--i.e. excessive contact, grabbing an arm or shirt, not playing the ball, etc.
2) I disagree completely that it's self-contradictory. An intentional foul is defined as neutralizing an opponent's advantageous position. Excessive contact is simply just one way of doing that.
The terminology that we've got now is fine. The understanding of that terminology obviously isn't.