Quote:
Originally Posted by tref
To properly apply the intent & purpose of the rules, we must use the definition of the entire rule as written, as opposed to using individual sentences of the rule to adjudicate.
Last season it was worded this way:
ART. 3
An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.
|
The highlighted red part....is nothing but intentional, deliberate if it was "designed". People like to dance around the word intent, but that IS what it is. You have to decide if it was designed to stop the clock or just happened to stop the clock. You have to consider intent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tref
The first sentence tells us what type of foul an INT can be & also defines what an INT is. The second sentence further defines intentional acts. The third sentence just clarifies that intent has nothing to do with the ruling.
May OR may not...
It is not part of our jobs to make decisions based on our thoughts of what they were or weren't thinking at the time of the foul.
|
Many people misconstrue this. This statement really just opens up the possibility of an intentional foul even if it is not premeditated. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider intent at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tref
B1 chases A1 on a fastbreak & purposely shoves him in the back OR cannot stop in time & accidently bumps the airborne shooter in the back. In both situations the airborne shooter flys into the wall & hits the ground real hard as a result of the contact while he was in an advantageous position.
In one he tried to shove the shooter, in the other he didn't, the result in both are the same (the first sitch could be upgraded).
May OR may not...
Meaning a persons intent has nothing to do with the decision of assessing an INT.
|
The running into the back option is an INT, not because it neutralized the position but because of the last sentence of the rule....in green. Which allows us to make an intentional foul even when they were just trying to make a normal play but missed and caused excessive force.
Intent IS part of the rule but it was extended to cover fouls outside of those that had intent. There have been proposals in the past to split intentionals into two rules to clarify the meaning...those with intent and those with excessive force but it has remained as it is.