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.

[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.)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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.

If the offense is ceding the foul as well, then by all means call the first contact. If the offense is breaking away from a layup and the defense is barely able to even make minimal contact: don't call something you wouldn't have called earlier in the game.

I kept watching it, expecting to see something more substantive in the contact than the intentional brush on the back. I see no impact on the shooter. She's not throwing a punch, so it matters whether or not the contact made a difference.

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements should be considered incidental." No exception is made for intentional contact.

[Blindolbat]

These are the very types of Intentional fouls that we all cringe at. But to me this is what the NFHS wants called as intentional. It's a breakaway that the defender has no chance to defend legally so they reach out and push/grab with no legitimate chance at the ball. I guess if she comes up from behind and blasts her into the wall then it makes our jobs a whole lot easier.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

If the offense is ceding the foul as well, then by all means call the first contact. If the offense is breaking away from a layup and the defense is barely able to even make minimal contact: don't call something you wouldn't have called earlier in the game.

I kept watching it, expecting to see something more substantive in the contact than the intentional brush on the back. I see no impact on the shooter. She's not throwing a punch, so it matters whether or not the contact made a difference.

"Contact which does not hinder the opponent from performing normal offensive or defensive movements should be considered incidental." No exception is made for intentional contact.

This play does fit the automatics. It is done from behind. I think saying if it doesn't affect the player it's always incidental is wrong. 1. Because there is an effect that we might not see. 2. Suppose the player touches her,right left, right left all the way from half court. On purpose. Offense keeps dribbling. Isn't "preventing" anything...but it's a foul. I understand where you come from by what it says but just because it doesn't prevent ..doesn't make it all incidental.

Ex. You hold ball. I whack at ball and hit crap out of your wrist. You keep holding ball. You weren't going anywhere. Didn't cause you a "disadvantage" but that's a foul. If you only look at the sentence above it wouldn't be one. Can't read it in isolation. Imo.

[Adam]

It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.

And in your example, I'm not calling that either for precisely that reason. If it dislodges the ball, I'll call the foul. If it doesn't impact the ball handler in any noticeable way, then I've got nothing. Just like the 100 lb pg running into the 250 lb center and falling off: I'm not calling the PC foul there, it's incidental contact because the innocent party wasn't disadvantaged (or displaced) in any way.

Your #2 point gets called a hand check due to the changes made, which do not apply to a single touch. If they wanted this to apply to a single touch, they would have said so, but this play in no way resembles a hand-check.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.

And in your example, I'm not calling that either for precisely that reason. If it dislodges the ball, I'll call the foul. If it doesn't impact the ball handler in any noticeable way, then I've got nothing. Just like the 100 lb pg running into the 250 lb center and falling off: I'm not calling the PC foul there, it's incidental contact because the innocent party wasn't disadvantaged (or displaced) in any way.

Your #2 point gets called a hand check due to the changes made, which do not apply to a single touch. If they wanted this to apply to a single touch, they would have said so, but this play in no way resembles a hand-check.

It is a left hand and then a right hand. It does resemble the wording of the rule. And..if you allow a player to smack the shi...out of a player holding the ball without calling a foul simply because the player held onto the ball I think you are making a mistake...a big one. Each will have to decide for themselves.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

It is a left hand and then a right hand. It does resemble the wording of the rule. And..if you allow a player to smack the shi...out of a player holding the ball without calling a foul simply because the player held onto the ball I think you are making a mistake...a big one. Each will have to decide for themselves.

First time through, I didn't think she ever made contact. After watching a few more times, I think she might have brushed her with each hand, but this isn't a hand check. I'm sorry, it may fit the "one hand - two hand" wording, but that's too much of a stretch for me.

"hand checking" is a specific play where the defender is actively defending someone: virtually always in a position to actually defend. This is not that play.

I will say this, if you call anything, you better call it intentional. I'd just like to think I'd have the patience to let it go.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

First time through, I didn't think she ever made contact. After watching a few more times, I think she might have brushed her with each hand, but this isn't a hand check. I'm sorry, it may fit the "one hand - two hand" wording, but that's too much of a stretch for me.

"hand checking" is a specific play where the defender is actively defending someone: virtually always in a position to actually defend. This is not that play.

I will say this, if you call anything, you better call it intentional. I'd just like to think I'd have the patience to let it go.

Me too but it's right out in front of the world with nothing else going on. I understand the call. I may have called it too....who knows....

[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.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Adam;1001329]It's still incidental because there's zero impact on the shooter. None.


The play does resemble the premeditated portion of the rule. Intent. Not severity.

[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.