So what, exactly, do we refer to when telling someone that the fouls we see all game aren't intentional fouls? In other words, if we don't agree that we can upgrade any foul we want to, what's the limiting authority here?

Honestly, I'm all for calling this an intentional if you think the contact warrants a foul: I'm just not convinced. If it's not an attempt to punch, then intent isn't enough without some successful execution. I don't think she makes enough contact to consider it successful execution of her intended foul.

I understand your point - you want to judge if the contact has an effect on the dribbler. I want to judge intent and want to decide if slight contact meets that intention.

There's more to it than judging intent, though. Look at how end of game fouling is accepted.

Now, that is a good comparative analysis to make in terms of "end of game" sitches---because we know the defense's 'intent' is to just stop the clock or gain possessions via missed FTs--regardless oftentimes of how the foul ''looks'' we frequently do not issue IFs despite said foul often meeting the NF criteria.

I think it's a sliding threshold. The more clear the intend, the less impact the contact probably needs to have. Had she completely missed, we're not even talking about intent. In this case, the miss was practically, but not quite, complete. I don't think that's enough.

And looking back at the score, there's no need to be getting a foul like this on the slightest touch. The team that fouled was leading by 1 at the time. That means my radar is not up for end-of-game fouls.

Agree that end of game has become accepted. But, premeditated foul from behind on a break away layup has not become "accepted" around here, end of game, first quarter, middle of 3rd quarter, etc.

I think that everybody agrees that the "intent" was there on this play but two different opinions on the amount of contact needed to complete the intention. Put me in the contact needed crowd instead of the advantage/disadvantage crowd when contact is involved. I am not sure if I am explaining myself correctly but on this play I would have made the same call as the guy in the video.

With my player/coach's hat on, I am thinking the exact opposite. I am looking at the score and the team that fouled was indeed up by one point. So, perhaps they had a foul to give or perhaps simply did not want to give up a layup. I think that is exactly what the girl behind was trying to do. I think she was trying to take a foul before any shot attempt but, turns out she was late.

The girl also makes contact with the shooter not once, but twice. Then the shooter misses the shot. Given multiple contact points from behind and a missed shot, I simply can't argue with the IF call. Not saying I would have made or not made it, just saying the calling official seems to have a pretty good case for his call.

Full disclosure we don't have intentionals in FIBA anymore. Everything is now an unsportsmanlike and the standards are obviously articulated differently. There are also automatics here for some actions and her act if deemed a foul would be one.

That being said based on the article you posted I would say if you were going to apply the standard a) and c) would be the ones you would use.

a) she is clearly not making a play on the ball and what the she took away would be up to the judgement of the official relative to the ability/situation of player. I'm ok with that judgement if that is what he makes.

c) she is very clearly trying to commit the foul to stop the break away she actually stops doing it once the shooting motion starts because she knows its too late now. Which means she committing the foul to stop the play and clock. Without making a play on the ball we are into the same area you get into at the end of the game. Where if the play is not a basketball play on the ball you come out with an INT/unsportsmanlike too because you have no justification not to call it that way.

Once again I feel like once you call this foul because of placement of the foul both on the player and court, you have to go intentional. I'm not saying you have to have a foul here but if you do its not common because its not a common/incidental play. There is intent and clearly done in a non basketball play to neutralize play and get the game stopped.

I would bet dollars to donughts that official without the benefit of our angles and replay thought one of the those contacts involved a jersey grab . . . but that really is just speculation.

You missed my point, because I probably wasn't clear.

The only way I'm making this call is if I'm on high alert for a potential clock-stopping foul. This isn't something I'd call at any other point in the game (not without internal regrets, anyway), but I will adjust and be on alert in late game situations. Even if I called this because my trigger was recalibrated, I'd regret it. My point in the post you quoted was that in this situation, I would not have recalibrated that trigger. Too much time, and the trailing team had the ball.

And if a partner made this call, I'd back it 100%. I just wouldn't have made it.

After a 2nd look I'm in the "nothing" category on the intentional foul call.

And I do wonder how many of you agreeing with the call would whistle that minimal contact in a boys game with bigger, faster, more athletic players.

I'm agreeing if you make the call it has to be intentional. Under our rule set (FIBA) I would have made the call because its suppose to be an automatic.

Under the NFHS guidelines I might pass entirely. But if I call I'm going intentional.

If in any game boys/girls the ball carrier had exploded away and was clearly not impacted the video is probably not even being discussed because no one can see a foul let alone watch several attempts at one take place. Reality is that whether its because shes a class 1A girls player, a class 4A boys player, a middle school aged owl . . . the player didn't explode away there was on going multiple contacts with whole gym is seeing it that you can make an argument for impacting her balance/rythm/control based on her inability to slow down and get on balance to make the uncontested layup at the end.

Keeping in mind if your on the side of the argument that says the contact didn't do anything she got off balanced and missed the layup because she: rushed/paniced/is terrible . . . I'm ok with you passing on everything too.

If 95 lbs freshmen boy gets bumped off the ball he's trying to dribble by a 245 lbs senior I can't pass on the foul because this is "boys basketball" and he should be stronger than that. Fouls are determined by their impact on the play not a players gender.

I just do not think that foul is premeditated by any means. It was a reflex to getting badly beat and she didn't neutralize any advantage by an opponent. Even if she "intended" to do it, it still doesn't meet the definitions of an intentional foul.

Someone else mentioned "not limited to"....I know that is there, but this action is not like the actions listed. I think an intentional foul call on this play is just wrong for the game. I think that any foul call on this is wrong.

If she had actually grasped the jersey and pulled on it, by all means, call an intentional, but that isn't what happened.

Agreed on determining foul by impact on play not gender. But was just asking the question.


Agreed here too. Like I said after a second look I'm passing on the contact here. But if I did have a whistle I'm still not going intentional.

I think it is somewhat interesting that we have a spectrum of opinions reaching from no foul all the way to intentional. Rarely would the same play lead to such disparate opinions. Usually, we're talking common vs no-call or common vs. intentional.

Why does tugging on the jersey earn an intentional in your game? It is not even listed in the rule?