Hard foul, intentional, flagrant ? (HS)

[hoopologist]

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).

[JRutledge]

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

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.

[BlueDevilRef]

Looks like a common foul. Red player went for the ball and it just turned into probably looking worse than it was

[JRutledge]

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

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

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".

[bucky]

Originally Posted by hoopologist

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.

[Rich]

Nothing here appears to warrant upgrading this to an intentional foul. Not to me, anyway.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by bucky

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?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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) "

[Rich]

"subsequent contact" - you cannot have a foul with contact only on the ball

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

[BryanV21]

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

[illinoisbluezeb]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by illinoisbluezeb

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.