"Not...Based Solely on the Severity of the Act"

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

From what they've written, most, if not all, of those are intentional fouls. None of them are playing the ball. Some are stopping an obvious advantage. The NFHS, if you take their words as given, is saying these should be IF. They are also saying deliberate fouling at the end of the game is OK, but it needs to be done correctly, not just tapping/grabbing someone.

You will have a lot of people that will not call it as such...not all that different than the handcheck changes. If you did, however, you'd almost instantly see players go for the ball and commit a foul typical in the process....or even get the ball without fouling. I think they don't really want IFs to increase but to motivate the players to actually play defense and play basketball....make the game more interesting at the end instead of just the FT parade.

So Camron, this is all well and good, but will these be expected to be called as Intentional Fouls in all games in PDX? In playoff games? We have been explicitly instructed to not call these types of fouls intentional fouls in our first meeting of the season. The message was incomplete - it wasn't entirely clear where the line in the sand is - I guess that's why we get paid the big bucks - we're supposed to know it when we see it.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Smitty

We have been explicitly instructed to not call these types of fouls intentional fouls in our first meeting of the season. The message was incomplete - it wasn't entirely clear where the line in the sand is - I guess that's why we get paid the big bucks - we're supposed to know it when we see it.

I'm guessing your meeting had an assignor or two but no rules committee members in attendance. Kind of like 99.9% of association meetings around the country.

I rest my case.

Proclamations from the ivory tower in Indianapolis don't help us get better schedules.

-----

Edit: Wanted to share the contents of a letter I sent to the NFHS regarding this very subject after the POEs were released:

"I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep when I don't call intentional fouls, and you curse the officiating community. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that my failure to call intentional fouls, while tragic, is in the best interest of the game; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, is in the best interest of the game.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at post-season banquets, you want me on that court -- you need me on that court.

We use phrases like "game management," "preventative officiating," "common foul." We use these phrases as the backbone of a life spent officiating something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a committee who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very judgment that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a whistle and stand in the slot. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I'm guessing your meeting had an assignor or two but no rules committee members in attendance. Kind of like 99.9% of association meetings around the country.

I rest my case.

Proclamations from the ivory tower in Indianapolis don't help us get better schedules.

Of course not. All our assigners were there as well as the gentleman giving us the Intentional Foul directive. His official title in the association is "Observation Chair", but he's the main guy who goes out and evaluates officials at games and reports back to the assignments team. Then he went through a pretty decent description of how we should be calling block/charges and how most block calls should actually be charges - I agree with him on that.

And then the head assigner went through about a dozen block/charge videos that essentially half the association couldn't agree on, and no clear direction was given whether any of them were one or the other. Even after the head assigner said he had shown many of them to D1 officials and even they couldn't agree.

This job is not easy.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Of course not. All our assigners were there as well as the gentleman giving us the Intentional Foul directive. His official title in the association is "Observation Chair", but he's the main guy who goes out and evaluates officials at games and reports back to the assignments team. Then he went through a pretty decent description of how we should be calling block/charges and how most block calls should actually be charges - I agree with him on that.

And then the head assigner went through about a dozen block/charge videos that essentially half the association couldn't agree on, and no clear direction was given whether any of them were one or the other. Even after the head assigner said he had shown many of them to D1 officials and even they couldn't agree.

This job is not easy.

Essentially, you have a local leadership that doesn't want to do what the NFHS wants done. You have to do what your local group asks for if you want to work, but that doesn't make it right (or consistent).

With different interpretations in every group, there will be inconsistency, guaranteed. The NFHS is trying to establish one interpretation. Some groups don't like it and will do their own thing.

Much like the handchecking issues that drug on for the better part of a decade, there were many that just bucked calling it the way they were saying it should be call. Eventually, by explicit rule changes, they got (mostly) the change they wanted. Some deny that 10 years of POEs existed but that doesn't change the fact that the NFHS wanted it called a certain way. Once it was done across the country, players adjusted and the game actually got better....and back to what basketball was supposed to be.

What will be done here for IFs? I don't know, yet. It will probably be stepped up to some degree, but not to the point of calling all of the posted videos as IFs.

All it takes is for enough officials to just call it and the players will find another way to foul on purpose without infringing on the IF rules. There would be a phase of adjustment, but then it would be solved. When you have entire groups bucking the directions given by the NFHS, that can't happen effectively.

[bucky]

Several have made references to "playing the ball" or similar phrases and one indicated the dislike for it. This is something that many coaches, on the fouling team, will argue, but we have to be careful, not only because of the IF definitions/wording, but also because of NF case 4.19.3 ruling: "...even though the opponent is playing the ball."

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

From what they've written, most, if not all, of those are intentional fouls. None of them are playing the ball. Some are stopping an obvious advantage. The NFHS, if you take their words as given, is saying these should be IF. They are also saying deliberate fouling at the end of the game is OK, but it needs to be done correctly, not just tapping/grabbing someone.

You will have a lot of people that will not call it as such...not all that different than the handcheck changes. If you did, however, you'd almost instantly see players go for the ball and commit a foul typical in the process....or even get the ball without fouling. I think they don't really want IFs to increase but to motivate the players to actually play defense and play basketball....make the game more interesting at the end instead of just the FT parade.

I agree with Cameron. In thousands of games I cant count on one hand my partners calling IF. Obvious bear hugs, grabbing shirts, pushing people etc at the end of game never gets called. I think they want these more obvious calls made so they are pushing for more IF calls. If its away from the ball it needs to be IF. If he comes up and its not a great play for the ball we talk to them. I am excited they are trying to get a discussion going and define that line better. Most people avoid it like the plague instead of defining when it is clearly needing an upgrade.

Bear hug is an IF. Grabbing a players shirt on a fast break is an IF. Going for the ball and a light foul is a foul at the end of the game. Light foul after the ball is gone is nothing in my book. A hard foul after the ball has been passed is an IF in my book. I know its a HTBT moment. Ive had enough that for me the lines are pretty good and I am excited its being discussed now. Cuz it feels like its never called even when some of these fouls are over the top or away from the ball and it catches people off guard.. because we dont enforce the IF rule well.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigT

Obvious bear hugs, grabbing shirts, pushing people ... at the end of game ... Bear hug is an IF. Grabbing a players shirt on a fast break is an IF ... A hard foul ... is an IF in my book ... away from the ball ...

Almost all the guys in my little corner of Connecticut will call these (above) intentional fouls. Rarely will coaches complain when these intentional fouls are called. However, coaches will often whine when (what they believe to be) "intentional" fouls are not called, "That's got to be intentional Billy Mac".