Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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?

ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

(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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 opponents 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.

Examples a-e are irrelevant because of "Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bucky

Examples a-e are irrelevant because of "Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:"

So you're saying the rule defining intentional fouls doesn't matter when determining whether an intentional foul should be called? Really? So you can call an intentional foul any time you want to, no need to enter into any discussion on it.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Adam

So you're saying the rule defining intentional fouls doesn't matter when determining whether an intentional foul should be called? Really? So you can call an intentional foul any time you want to, no need to enter into any discussion on it.

No, I did not say that at all. Look at the words and understand the English language. You cited a-e only as part of your question/answer however those are just examples and intentional fouls are not limited to just those examples. The NFHS is just giving you some scenarios but not all of the scenarios for an intentional foul.

The only truly defining part is "An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. "

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bucky

No, I did not say that at all. Look at the words and understand the English language. You cited a-e only as part of your question/answer however those are just examples and intentional fouls are not limited to just those examples. The NFHS is just giving you some scenarios but not all of the scenarios for an intentional foul.

The only truly defining part is "An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. "

So let me ask you this: what rule are you using to determine whether a foul is to be upgraded? Your only defining rule here seems to be even more nebulous than the rule you find insufficient. You say I'm wrong and that you didn't say you could call an intentional any time: what's your limiting factor here?

(moderator note)
I understand English just fine, so that part was unnecessary.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Adam

So you're saying the rule defining intentional fouls doesn't matter when determining whether an intentional foul should be called? Really? So you can call an intentional foul any time you want to, no need to enter into any discussion on it.

I think he is saying that the examples listed fall under the "include but not limited" category.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I think he is saying that the examples listed fall under the "include but not limited" category.

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.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Camron Rust;1001318]What part of the intentional foul rule did she violate?


The premeditated portion of the rule. Intent. Doesn't have to based on severity part of the rule. Intent. Similar to tugging on a jersey. (which isn't even one of the examples). When this rule first came out, they used a play in the casebook very similar to this play.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

How is she going to foul harder? She reaches in this manner cause the player with the ball is getting away from her?

Maybe the other player would foul her, sure, but that's not really my problem here.

(BTW, I think those that intentionally call girls games in a different manner than boys games are doing the girls a disservice.)