Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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.

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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.