The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 16, 2017, 07:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Pacific Northwest - Bellevue, WA
Posts: 8
Hard foul, intentional, flagrant ? (HS)

Hard foul ... and more?

First, let me say I'm not an official. I'm a coach of some three decades and I really enjoy the game management that officials provide. I seem to equally enjoy the conversations around rules, enforcement, and the myriad viewpoints of you guys running the floor. So thanks for this forum.

Should I ever be out of line, and I doubt that will be the case, please feel free to set me straight.

Here I'm posting a play from a recent HS BV game in Seattle. I realize the video makes it difficult to determine the nature or degree of the foul. But I'm wondering about the nuances differentiating a tough, hard-nosed foul from an intentional or flagrant.

Here the shooter is airborne but is the contact excessive merely because the shooter goes down hard? (19.3.d).
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 16, 2017, 07:27pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Long gone from the Peoria Civic Center
Posts: 26,924
Embedding is your friend.



Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 845
Can't tell from this angle. Looks like just a hard foul , unless #4 did something egregious on the back side this is common shooting foul.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:32pm
High Five Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 629
Looks like a common foul. Red player went for the ball and it just turned into probably looking worse than it was
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 16, 2017, 08:36pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Long gone from the Peoria Civic Center
Posts: 26,924
It was a hard foul, but it looked like to me just a normal shooting foul. Both tried to play the ball and one might have had a clean block. Just unfortunate how he fell but I would not call this anything but a shooting foul.

Peace
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 16, 2017, 10:41pm
Show up, keep up, shut up
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef View Post
Looks like a common foul. Red player went for the ball and it just turned into probably looking worse than it was
I think you mean shooting foul. A common foul by definition is not a shooting foul. Unless you think this foul is "on the floor".
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 12:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopologist View Post
Hard foul ... and more?

First, let me say I'm not an official. I'm a coach of some three decades and I really enjoy the game management that officials provide. I seem to equally enjoy the conversations around rules, enforcement, and the myriad viewpoints of you guys running the floor. So thanks for this forum.

Should I ever be out of line, and I doubt that will be the case, please feel free to set me straight.

Here I'm posting a play from a recent HS BV game in Seattle. I realize the video makes it difficult to determine the nature or degree of the foul. But I'm wondering about the nuances differentiating a tough, hard-nosed foul from an intentional or flagrant.

Here the shooter is airborne but is the contact excessive merely because the shooter goes down hard? (19.3.d).
To answer your question for this play, I would say "no" IMO. Many times a player's own speed/momentum causes them to be in a position where contact, whether all ball or anywhere on the body, results in the player having a hard/awkward landing. Now, by rule, if there is excessive contact with the opponent, you have an intentional foul. By case, you can have contact only with the ball and if excessive, also have an intentional foul. For your play, I would not argue with anyone who called this an intentional foul, even if only the ball was played.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 12:44am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,944
Nothing here appears to warrant upgrading this to an intentional foul. Not to me, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 01:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
To answer your question for this play, I would say "no" IMO. Many times a player's own speed/momentum causes them to be in a position where contact, whether all ball or anywhere on the body, results in the player having a hard/awkward landing. Now, by rule, if there is excessive contact with the opponent, you have an intentional foul. By case, you can have contact only with the ball and if excessive, also have an intentional foul. For your play, I would not argue with anyone who called this an intentional foul, even if only the ball was played.
Please, help me understand how one "can have contact only with the ball and if excessive, also have an intentional foul."
How does one "excessively contact the ball" and consequently be considered as having committed a foul against his/her opponent?
Basketball Rules Fundamentals 10. "Personal fouls always involve illegal contact . . ."
4-19-1 . . . A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent.
You mention "by rule" and "by case." To which "case" are you referring?
__________________
To be good at a sport, one must be smart enough to play the game -- and dumb enough to think that it's important . . .
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 01:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob1968 View Post
Please, help me understand how one "can have contact only with the ball and if excessive, also have an intentional foul."
How does one "excessively contact the ball" and consequently be considered as having committed a foul against his/her opponent?
Basketball Rules Fundamentals 10. "Personal fouls always involve illegal contact . . ."
4-19-1 . . . A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent.
You mention "by rule" and "by case." To which "case" are you referring?
NFHS Case 4.19.3 Sit B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. As A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds."
"RULING: An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball. (4-11) "
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 02:35am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,944
"subsequent contact" - you cannot have a foul with contact only on the ball
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 02:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 781
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
NFHS Case 4.19.3 Sit B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. As A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds."
"RULING: An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball. (4-11) "
"the subsequent contact" indicates that subsequent to the opponent getting a hand on the ball, (meaning that after B1 got a hand on the ball) there was contact by B1 with the person of A1, and that contact took A1 forcefully to the floor. The wording does not mean that B1 getting a hand on the ball is considered "contact." If B1's hand on the ball was considered to be the cause of the warranted foul, the word "subsequent" would not be used.
The intended understanding of this Case Book play is that the opponent "playing the ball" does not indemnify the opponent from responsibility for "subsequent contact with the ballhandler," even to the extent that excessive contact, after "playing the ball" may rise to the level of warranting an intentional foul being called.
Simply, and admittedly redundant as it may be, a hand on the ball is not "contact" for the purpose of judging whether a foul is to be assessed, regardless of the force applied by the opponent, to the ball. Only contact with the person of the opponent can be judged to warrant a foul being called.
__________________
To be good at a sport, one must be smart enough to play the game -- and dumb enough to think that it's important . . .
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 08:21am
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,220
The defender looked to be trying to make a play on the ball, and his follow through after missing the block hit the shooter, causing the shooter to land hard. The defender did not look to be trying to foul, nor do his actions indicate to me he was being overly forceful in taking the shooter down after contact.

Two shots
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southeastern Illinois
Posts: 54
I could even see this being a held ball. Going to the AP.
Can't tell if there was body contact, there was no intentional or malicious foul that I could see.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 17, 2017, 10:46am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinoisbluezeb View Post
I could even see this being a held ball. Going to the AP.
Can't tell if there was body contact, there was no intentional or malicious foul that I could see.
It can't be a held ball -- the ball came out before the player returned to the floor.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intentional/Flagrant Foul gplevritis Basketball 4 Mon Dec 14, 2009 01:38pm
Intentional Flagrant Personal Foul iref4him Basketball 11 Thu Jan 11, 2007 02:42pm
Intentional/flagrant foul johnnyrao Basketball 6 Tue Nov 21, 2006 09:55am
Hard Foul or Intentional SmokeEater Basketball 22 Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:17am
Flagrant or intentional foul? jesmael Basketball 3 Wed Jan 21, 2004 01:30am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1