Loose ball and continuation of play? (Video)

[Rich]

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

[Kansas Ref]

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.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

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

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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 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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

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.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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

Please see 4.19.3 Sit C in the 2016-17 NFHS Case Book.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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

It often neutralizes an opponents obvious advantage. If it doesn't do that, I don't call it intentional.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Please see 4.19.3 Sit C in the 2016-17 NFHS Case Book.

[Nevadaref]

Video Request
This might help this discussion.
2nd half 9:49 left Seton Hall at Butler, played today.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Please see 4.19.3 Sit C in the 2016-17 NFHS Case Book.

I am aware of this case play. I was merely pointing out that even though tugging the jersey is not one of the examples, the rules makers want it called. The play in the video was either "emphasized" or a newly written as part of the intentional rule in the early 90's. They had a case play similar to the tugging the jersey case play.

It is not only that - the potential escalation should be considered.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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

Those are examples and are NOT all inclusive

Plus, I think jersey grab/tug could be part of a, b, or c.

Lastly, it is case play 4.19.3.