Intentional Foul ...
 

Happened a few weeks ago in my game. I was the trail in the backcourt. Defensive team behind by a few points was running out of time and obviously trying to stop the clock with a foul. B1, in the backcourt, reaches to foul A1 and misses contact by inches. I pass on the "foul". A1 quickly dribbles past B1 into the frontcourt where she's hammered by B2. My partner, the lead, correctly calls an intentional (excessive contact) foul on B2.

I'm not saying that I should have called the first (phantom) foul but I will certainly consider it in the future. In some cases the offensive team, in this situation, will simply default to just shooting their free throws, but in other cases the offensive team will try to avoid stopping the clock by avoiding fouls by the defense. Rock and hard place?

I think that we are saying the same thing? A phantom foul is minimal contact that you would normally pass on? Needs to be some contact for me otherwise you would be punishing a good play by the offense if they are able to "avoid" the contact.

[QUOTE=ronny mulkey;1001253]Generally, I agree. But in this case, I find it hard to stop that play.
The touch was maybe just a brush of the finger tips on the shirt...not a grab/pull on the jersey. It wasn't the type of play where they were just trying to stop the clock.

No Contact ...
 

My "phantom foul" is this game was no contact. That's why I passed on it. The defender missed the attempted hold by mere inches.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001267]I don't think it was trying to stop the clock, either. I do think she was trying to "neutralize an obvious advantageous position" part of the rule.

Trying to and actually doing is where I see the difference....

Rule 4-19-3a
That contact had no effect at all.

On my phone I didn't think she touched her. On the big screen she reaches out and puts left hand on back and then right one on the hip. She's trying to get a foul call but not realizing she needs to make it look better. In girls 1Abasketball I think you have to call it and all your left with is intentional.

Why would I call this in a girls game and leave it alone elsewhere?

I've heard some girls games with INSANE numbers of fouls considering the quality of teams and the only reason I can think of is that the officials simply don't get advantage/disadvantage.

You don't know what effect the left and then the right hand had on offense. She does go on to brick the layup. The defender is trying to foul, left hand then right hand. Again, no legitimate reason for hands to be there. There placed there...on purpose...on a ballhandler..In a 4A boys game I'd expect him to play through it better. 1A girls obviously less strong etc. and as someone else said, she's trying to foul , not once but twice. If not called the third one will be clear. I'd have to see the contact in a higher level boys game. If it was like this contact I'd pass on it. Different skill level.

Neither does tugging on a jersey but the intent is clear. Again, give them what they want so that they don't have to foul someone harder. That is frustrating to both players.

The reason she's not doing more is cause she can't reach her.

I'd like to think I'd pass on this, but I'm watching video in my jammy pants and not on the floor at that spot.

I didn't see anything that I would have wanted to call, even in a middle school girls game. She tried to foul her, but failed (IMO). Would I have actually blown my whistle in that situation if I had been on alert for a foul? Maybe, but I wouldn't have felt good about it.

The INT is a tough call here but by rule . . .

She is clearly trying to foul her and get the whistle but is not making a play on the ball so IF you call a foul here you have to INT.

If you have a patient whistle and try to see how it develops you might be able to wait until the act of shooting for a common foul anyway, but she actually stops doing it before the act of shooting starts. You also run the risk of her needing to foul harder to get the call.

I think the official on the floor gave her as much rope as he felt like he could but when she let her go to take the layup whether he thought she'd had jersey or just felt like he had to have something because the whole gym saw her trying to foul his hands were tied.

What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?

(a) didn't happen...that requires actual impact
(b) didn't happen
(c) didn't happen...it wasn't a foul designed to stop the clock
(d) didn't happen
(e) not applicable

Very simply, reaching out and trying to foul someone isn't enough to be intentional. (a) is the closest but it actually requires that the contact has the impact of neutralizing the opponent's advantage.

Pulling on someone's jersey to slow them down would qualify...but she didn't do that.

I still maintain that this is simply not a foul, much less an intentional foul. If, instead, she actually got a grasp of the jersey and pulled it...sure, it would be an intentional foul. But we call what happens.

1. Foul. Obvious displacement after failed diving steal attempt.

2. I'd probably go intentional too, since A1 missed the layup. (edit: I probably might not have a foul at all on this play. Nothing the defender did appears to affect A1's rhythm, balance, speed or direction. But, by rule, I can easily see how the official went "intentional")

3. No travel. Left foot pivot did not return to floor before try was released.

4. Looks like a travel on film, but I'm probably not calling that at full speed in a game from the L (although the L in this play is in the best possible position to make that call since he's so wide).