|
Isn't this an area where the rules and the general practice are at odds? If the player's intent is to foul to stop the clock, it clearly satisfies the English meaning of intentional, regardless of their physical behavior. Conversely, we all expect it to happen in close games, and nobody expects an intentional foul to be called if the player makes a half-hearted attempt to look like he or she is playing the ball. My question is, do we, the basketball community, think the ambiguity caused by the current rules help anything? I think it is important to keep muggings under control when the defense is trying to stop the clock, but isn't there a better way? Why should the officials have to make counter-intuitive calls? (By counter-intuitive I mean not calling an intentional foul when everybody knows it is on purpose.)
I can think of some lame rule changes that would address the issue, but they probably would make other things worse. Maybe a new class of personal foul to make it clearer that not all "on purpose" fouls are "intentional"?
Any ideas or comments?
|