|
In my opinion, the problem with the intentional foul rule is the word "intentional". People interpret it to mean that the one kid was trying to hurt the other one. I wish we had a different word for when someone is not trying to stop the clock but just gets carried away. I agree with the penalty and the set-up, but the word makes it awkward. Also, we should always use the word "excessive" when describing these fouls and not "hard".
I had to call a common foul a couple of weeks ago, where the shooter ended up in a heap on the floor and took about 10 minutes to get up. The coach couldn't understand why the foul wasn't intnetional. But the contact was not even remotely excessive, just placed in an unfortunate part of the body. The defender was quite a bit taller than the shooter and defender was behind. She reached forward to block the shot and did indeed stop the ball. But as the shooter kept moving up, defender's arm was in the way, and shooter got her head snapped backwards by contact with the defender's elbow. It was a hard foul, but not excessive at all. Coach kept saying, "That was a hard foul! How is that not intentional?!" Well, the contact wasn't excessive, it just wasn't. If we wouldn't use the phrase "hard foul" it would be easier to explain.
I felt justified in calling it common at the end of the game, since coach called a TO, fouled player hit both her free throws and player played the rest of the game (about 5 minutes). Obviously, not too bad an injury!
[Edited by rainmaker on Feb 13th, 2003 at 10:25 AM]
|