Controversial call at end of OHSAA State Final

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Back in the ancient days, that was pretty much an automatic intentional foul. In my early days of coaching middle school basketball, back in the late 1970's, I was told by a fellow teacher who also officiated our home games to come up with a code word. From that point on, the code word was, "Steal the ball". I used it for over twenty-five years, even after the NFHS changed to rule to allow for strategic fouling at the end of the game.

The trendy word lately (at least around here) is, "Fire, fire, fire!"

As if we don't know what's happening.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

As if we don't know what's happening.

2012-13 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
Intentional Foul: Game awareness. The probability of fouling late in the game is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by many coaches in some form. Officials must have the courage to enforce the intentional foul rule properly.

2013-14 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
Intentional Foul: This type of foul may be strategic to stop the clock or create a situation that may be tactically done for the team taking action.

[Kansas Ref]

Is it possible to perhaps include a cursory coverage of this item {viz. strategic fouls that could be called Intentionals} in the pregame with coaches and player reps just so to make sure all participants on same page? Or would we be over-stepping our authoritative bounds---not that they'll listen to a pregame anyway.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Is it possible to perhaps include a cursory coverage of this item {viz. strategic fouls that could be called Intentionals} in the pregame with coaches and player reps just so to make sure all participants on same page? Or would we be over-stepping our authoritative bounds---not that they'll listen to a pregame anyway.

If I'm doing younger kids or subvarsity I may tell a coach to make sure his players "play the ball" or whatever, but never in "real" ball.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

If I'm doing younger kids or subvarsity I may tell a coach to make sure his players "play the ball" or whatever, but never in "real" ball.

If it's clearly a foul situation for a team coming out of a timeout, I will sometimes just say out loud, "Be sure you're going for the ball." I don't consider this coaching the team, but rather a reminder to not put themselves, or me, in the position where we have to consider an intentional.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Is it possible to perhaps include a cursory coverage of this item {viz. strategic fouls that could be called Intentionals} in the pregame with coaches and player reps just so to make sure all participants on same page? Or would we be over-stepping our authoritative bounds---not that they'll listen to a pregame anyway.

That is just setting you or your partners up for trouble as soon as they perceive that you're calling it even a little different than what they thought you described.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Is it possible to perhaps include a cursory coverage of this item {viz. strategic fouls that could be called Intentionals} in the pregame with coaches and player reps just so to make sure all participants on same page? Or would we be over-stepping our authoritative bounds---not that they'll listen to a pregame anyway.

As Camron notes, you're setting yourself up for problems. Pregame is not the time for a discussion about rules or philosophy. Get in, get done, get them back to what they want to do.

If they're even partly paying attention, it's only partly, and they're only going to hear enough to confuse them about your intention.

Like a doctor: do no harm. This can only do harm.

[BigCat]

I'm with the others. I can think of a whole lot of reasons not to do it and not one good reason to do it. Coach be offended cause thinks he knows rule...coach just immediately gets bad impression about you--weird..nobody else says that...and on and on..

I heard from a ref who worked one of the other championship games and he said the guy they were trying to foul got bumped twice while standing there....said the first bump probably should have been called common before the 2nd/3rde happened.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, the winning team shouldn't leave a crappy FT shooter on the floor. On the other hand the foul, while perhaps intentional in nature was not your typical "take foul", which would involve wrapping up a player with arms while clearly trying to foul that specific player off the ball. The bumping is less clear....which is why we get paid for our judgement.

I'm not sure what the correct call is here, but if you call INT I think it has to be REALLY obvious that's what they are trying to do.