Controversial call at end of OHSAA State Final

[osf777]

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.

[just another ref]

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

[bucky]

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

[ODog]

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

[osf777]

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by osf777

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."

[Nevadaref]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[BryanV21]

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.

[ODog]

39-38 in the boys Division I final?!

Sounds like Ohio needs a shot clock.

[jamesshank]

Originally Posted by ODog

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

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[jamesshank]

Originally Posted by jamesshank

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

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Others, not good...Sorry

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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.

[MechanicGuy]

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