Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

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.

[VaTerp]

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.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.