[Toren]

I know we debated whether intent was a part of an intentional foul call in another string.

The argument against intent being part of an intentional foul is we can't judge someone's "intent" and we must base our decision on the action.

I have given this a couple of weeks of thought and feel there might be more to discuss on this issue.

The definition of intentional foul does include a sentence that states: Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act.

So if an intentional foul may be premeditated that would tell me that we can judge intent. Otherwise, the rulebook would have left this part of the definition out. To premeditate something is to think about that action prior to doing it.

So while I would certainly never explain to a coach: That kid was thinking I'm going to prevent a dunk and just grab this guy and that is why we called an intentional, coach.

I also want to make the point that intentional includes the word intent. It's similar, in my opinion, to traveling. Although the word travel is not in the definition, it is the word that we are defining. So if someone said traveling is a violation that occurs when someone is not dribble and has traveled beyond the legal limits. Certainly we wouldn't say, travel is never used in the definition of traveling, therefore that definition is not accurate.

I may have misinterpreted what people were saying, so I thought I would start a new string. I am anxious to hear people's thoughts.