Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
This is a good point, and I'm inclined to go with official's judgment here. If you think it was an attempt to neutralize an opponent's obviously advantageous position, then go ahead with the INT.
But I disagree with the idea of calling an INT just because it's "not a basketball play." There's no rules basis for that idea, and it's not synonymous with neutralizing obvious advantage.
But "not a basketball play" IS relevant: the defender loses all benefit of the doubt in a play like this, and could be hit with an INT or flagrant foul -- especially in a "warm" game, kicking could easily be interpreted as fighting.
So although "not a basketball play" does not by itself warrant the INT, I think it lowers the bar for INT or flagrant.
|
I think the "not a basketball play" comes in where the defender knows that regardless of what she makes contact with, be it ball or A1, she will violate or foul. Therefore B1 knowingly fouled without attempt to play the ball. That's a good fit for an intentional foul.
Beyond that, high kicking is a dangerous act which puts the opponent as well as the kicker herself at significant risk of injury. It's a foul committed with excessive force.
Take your pick, but either way I think you've got an intentional.