Controversial call at end of OHSAA State Final
 

Coincidentally I was on here two years ago about the Ohio kid who got T'd up at the end of the game for hanging on the rim, but this year a new scenario has arrived.

At the end of a game between Moeller and Massilon Jackson, Moeller was down one with about 45 seconds left. MJ has possession, and Moeller coach instructs his kids to foul one specific player, but he was not the player with the ball. Unlike the "Hack-A-Shaq" technique where you grab a guy, their defender continually bumped this player without using his hands to commit the foul. Officials let it go at first, but then the lead official finally makes a call and calls the Moeller player for an intentional foul. That did not end up being a deciding call as Moeller tied it up, it could have been.

I am curious what you all think about this play and how it was officiated? Sorry, no video, at least not yet.

Sounds like the very definition of an intentional foul in NFHS rules.

Yes, sounds as if it was a very easy IF call to make. Ref had no choice really.

Misleading title to this thread ... what was the controversy?

I suppose the controversy was more with the coach and fans, but here's the coach talking about his understanding of the rules after the game. About :48 seconds into this video.

Moeller madness ends at The Schott

Key phrase being, "our understanding of the rules."

The NFHS had a POE on intentional fouls a couple of years ago. A foul away from the ball against a player not involved in the play was one criterion listed.

Two Years In A Row ...
 

2012-13 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

Intentional Fouls. The committee is concerned about the lack of enforcement for intentional fouls during any part of the game but especially at the end of a game. The intentional foul rule has devolved into misapplication and personal interpretations. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

a. Anytime during the game. Acts that neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position and must be deemed intentional include:
1. Excessive contact on any player attempting a try
2. Grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored
3. Grabbing and holding a player from behind or away from the ball
These are “non-basketball acts” and must be considered intentional fouls

b. 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 - 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. It is contact that:
- Neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position.
- Contact on an opponent who is clearly not in the play.
- May be excessive contact.
- Contact that is not necessarily premeditated or based solely on the severity of the act.
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. This foul may be innocent in severity, but without any playing of the ball, it becomes an intentional act such as a player wrapping their arms around an opponent. The act may be excessive in its intensity and force of the action. These actions are all intentional fouls and are to be called as such.

What else should the official have done? Sounds like there's no disagreement that it was a foul, just with the "intentional" part of it. However, NFHS clearly tells us that a foul like this is indeed "intentional".

No controversy at all. Just a coach and some fans that don't know the rules or are too upset about the loss to acknowledge them.

39-38 in the boys Division I final?!

Sounds like Ohio needs a shot clock.

Yep, but of course these games are anomalies according to good on another thread [emoji12]

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Others, not good...Sorry

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I'll issue a polite dissent here. Have none of us ever called a common foul away from the ball against a player not involved in a play? An offensive player might be standing in the post weakside, unengaged, without much going on....yet. But a defender, anticipating a need to improve his future rebounding position, might displace him to make space. Are we saying that's an intentional foul because it occurred away from the ball against a player not involved in the play? Of course we don't.

I understand the intent of the quoted POE, and from the description in the OP, it sounds like the intent of the player who got fouled was expressly to have nothing to do with any intent to play or score. And why not if you want all the attention on your team's best free throw shooter? So if that's the case, good IF call.

My point is that there are some (coaches and officials) who believe that in a late game situation such as in the OP, only the ball handler can be fouled commonly. False! So if a coach is strategizing to foul a weaker FT shooter, I'm going common foul if the fouled player has even so much as a sniff of engagement in the play.

What I remind myself during these situations is that A) some good coaches will try to foul before a throw-in ends in order to maximize saved time, and B) outside of throw-ins, to at least have an awareness of off-ball defenders in case they want to foul a weaker FT shooter.

That is why its one of the requirements, not THE only requirement.

I'm sure we will be seeing this in our meetings a few times for next season.

Coach: "We wanted to cheat. We thought we were going to get away with it. We didn't."

What you describe is apples and oranges in a take-foul situation. In one scenario the defender is attempting to put himself in a better situation to play better defense and could draw a foul OR could not, in the other he's simply creating the contact to draw a foul. If it's a "basketball" play then I don't call an intentional.

This sounded and was described as a rule book execution of an intentional foul.

By written rule, sounds as if it was handled by the book.

With that said, I've seen plenty of these at end of game that probably fall right within the crosshairs of the written rule at the end of games but don't get called as intentional. The defense who is trailing is fouling with the sole purpose of stopping the clock...it's an unwritten understanding but by written rule, it doesn't seem to get called as such because of the aforementioned.

Same time/place/score - If a non ball handler were cutting and the defense held them on the cut, would we call it intentional...probably not but that would be the way around the intentional call.

I just don't see it called intentional at the end of games when it's clear they are trying to extend the game for themselves.

A cutter being held to prevent a cut is usually a basketball play and one where the defender is caught off guard and/or out of position. A player away from the ball just standing there getting fouled at the end of regulation is an intentional foul. We all know in take-foul situations the offense is NOT running anything except get the ball to the best FT shooter and run the clock.

I know...I'm just saying...if the only intent by the foul is to stop the clock, then really it's probably an intentional foul. Everyone in the house knows what's going on but it doesn't get called intentional.

I guess if the "make a play on the ball" then we're calling common foul...same with the holding of a cutter. My point was that the coach could have found a better way to get the non-ball handler to the line with something less obvious. But as someone pointed out, he stated "to my understanding of the rule". Well, not all coaches know the rules....Who knew!? ;)

The expectation is that if you're giving a foul to stop the clock, you need to be fouling the player with the ball. Trying to circumvent that is going to, or should, draw an intentional call from the officials.

I can't say all, but some officials around here will tell teams in these late game situations to make sure you're going for the ball, or something like that.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

I understand that and agree...If you really want to stop the clock and get the non-ball handler guy who can't hit FTs to the line, you better do it in the manner I said and hold him while he's cutting so it's not so obvious... ;)

I refereed a game once where the home team was trying to score 100 points against an out-manned team. Single A level ball. Home team is pressing up 60 points with under a minute to go and stuck on 98 pts. The home team coach yells "foul him, foul him." The home player fouled the dribbler and I called an intentional foul. Poor sportsmanship by the home coach but in hindsight, I should not have called the intentional foul.

Are you thinking you should have called a flagrant foul instead? :p

Steal The Ball, Steal The Ball, Steal The Ball ...
 

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.

I recall this was only a short-lived experiment (1 season, maybe) where it was official policy. Not saying it wasn't called that way in some areas, but I don't remember that it was ever the rule except for that single season.

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

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

I wonder what the code word was for wanting them to steal the ball.:cool:

We All Know ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Or a better basketball!!!

Peace

To the earlier reply about "explaining" to a coach about take-foul scenarios: This is not the time for a rules clinic. It's ok to explain a ruling after the fact but not before. It's also imperative when you know a team MAY be fouling to get the FIRST foul. Some coaches will be asses no matter the outcome.

I had a game where the coach pretty much told me what they were about to do. At the first sign of contact I blew my whistle which came just a fraction of a second before a second defender stole the ball (which if the coach didn't tell me what he was doing and the primary defender had been .5 seconds later it would have been a no call and steal). The coach "questioned" the call 30 feet away, and I responded with a T (not like he was a saint all game either). If he didn't tell me what he did I may not have T'd him for his behavior, but the fact that he did and then acted that way is the behavior that, I think, as officials we don't do a good enough job of addressing.

It wasn't. It was one year and before that we had coaches and teams yelling "foul, foul, foul."

We would tell coaches to use some other word. Then that stupid policy went away and they went by what they did before. I never remember such a policy before that one year.

Peace

How would a different basketball help solve the problem? ;)

You need something better if that is the final score with the so-called best two teams.

Peace

I had an intentional fouling situation this past weekend. 7th grade boys I think, a player (A1) ran over to me after a timeout and said "Mr. Ref we are going to try and foul B55 on the other team after we score". I replied "Ok, make sure he has the ball and you go for the ball". He said nothing, but ran to his place. Team A scored, Team B inbounded the ball and a guard dribbled up the floor. Sure enough, a Team A player (A3) was trying to hug B55 on his way up the floor. Neither my partner or I called it. Within a few seconds A2 fouled the Team B dribbler. I called it, we set up for FT's and I went directly to the coach. He was already looking expectantly at me and said "we can't foul #55?" I replied "You can, but it would considered an Intentional foul. He has to have the ball or be involved in play somehow, not just running up the court. High schools rules are different from NBA -- you can't Hack-a-Shaq here". The coach gave a dejected sigh but nodded. We kept playing and B55 got the ball through normal play and they fouled him. But Team A still lost.

Not really sure what I could have done better. Should I have immediately gone and talked to the A coach after his player told me their plan? Should I have said nothing and just called an INT when they tried hugging B55? What do you guys think?

It's 7th grade travel ball, I would have shouted at the coach to make an attempt "on the ball" and that we don't play using NBA rules. Then I would have ignored the contact unless it HAD to be called an INT, and during the FT's told him what you said. But I wouldn't have held the game up to go and talk to him before.

It's 7th grade ball. In varsity or higher, INT all the way.

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.

I would have told the kid you just can't go grab him or shove him. Needs have ball..etc. something short and firm. If they still go run and foul him on other side of floor then I'd call the intentional. I wouldn't tell a coach before anything at that age. I'd expect the coach or players to know. If they don't already, calling it is the way to teach them. If it's 5th grade and under I'd do something different.

This is exactly why such situations shouldn't be handled in the described manner.
Officials shouldn't alter what a foul is near the end of the game. Call the contact the same as you did earlier in the contest. There is a proper way to foul for a strategic purpose. If the team cannot do that, then officials shouldn't be rewarding their poor execution. More importantly to this story, slight contact which would not have been deemed a foul previously in the game should not be whistled at this point. To do so is unfair. The camp advice of "call the first foul" does not equate to whistle as soon as someone breathes on the opponent. See an actual foul before calling anything.

You should have called an IPF when Team A was fouling B55 away from the play.

Some people worry about trying to determine when the kids are old enough and the coaches experienced enough for actual rules enforcement. I see that as problematic because it is naturally subjective.

Instead, I would advise any official to focus upon his role in the contest. Be a neutral arbiter: protect the safety of all players and properly and fairly enforce the rules.

If the league/event hires real referees for the contests, then the real rules should be used and enforced. This isn't a Harlem Globetrotters show. Officials aren't props or coaches on the floor.

Eh, if a team is clearly trying to foul and is able to make that "slight contact," I'm getting that immediately. Otherwise, things can escalate pretty quickly when defenders take the "Ok, then I guess I need to step up the contact" tack.

The slippery slope argument and fear-mongering!

Again, there is a proper way to foul. If a team cannot execute that, then officials shouldn't be helping them. That's favoritism of the team which is behind in the contest.

Rather than escalating to a horrible mess, it is much more logical to believe that a middle ground will occur in which the defensive player actually fouls the opponent instead of just causes slight contact. That is when the official should properly make the call.

Officials should call actual fouls near the end of games and not live in fear of what might happen.

Two hands on a ball handler is an "automatic", right? Just tag the ball handler with two hands, always gets the whistle here, no matter how slight the contact. No need to "go for the ball".

The defense wanted to foul 55. He was not the ball handler. Saying go for the ball is another way to say make sure player has the ball. As i said, i would tell a kid who talks to me as Arem mentioned, "dont just go grabbing 55 or shoving him if he doesn't have ball." If they do it after that i will call it intentional. In 7th grade the kids should know the rules and certainly a coach should.

In a 5th grade game i might do something different. Ultimately, its jr high basketball. If they have to learn you cant go grab somebody by me calling intentional foul then it is what it is. Better they learn now than later....

I was just responding to Nevada's post about the proper way to foul. When the refs know what you're doing, tagging the ballhandler with two hands is all you need to do.