![]() |
|
|
|
|||
|
Let's put the entire POE in the discussion so there is no confusion as to the wording. By my reading, I don't see the intent for us to call all the plays you've posted as IFs.
3. 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 evolved into misapplication and personal interpretations. 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. Officials must be aware of the game situations as 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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR |
|
|||
|
I think the IF is one of the most difficult fouls to call. So many times everyone knows that the defense is fouling with the intent to stop the clock but rarely is it called, especially since, the foul is so slight. Both offensive(with ball)/defensive players will even look at the official acknowledging the foul to be called. It is very obvious and officials tend to cater to the strategy and call a personal foul. It is the rougher and not-so-obvious end-of-game fouls that make it more difficult to officiate and result in more pressure to call them IFs. Generally speaking, in the vids, I at least can argue that the defense was reaching/going for the ball...barely in some. Also, hard to argue with IFs being called in the vids based on the rule wording. Always tough.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
|
|
|||
|
In a take-foul situation if it's close enough I'm not going to call and IF. All you do is set each subsequent possession and foul up for increase contact that may end up bordering on flagrant.
However in these videos, most of these would first get a warning and reminder to not do it again and the IF could be used the next time they occur. However just from these clips I only see a couple that I would deem IF right off the bat.
__________________
in OS I trust |
|
|||
|
Personally, I hate the "play the ball" terminology that they use.
A player who puts two hands on an opponent (hand check) is not usually "playing the ball". They are usually either (poorly) attempting to stay with an opponent or are attempting to disrupt the opponent's movement. A player who displaces an opponent away from the ball to get better rebounding position is also not "playing the ball". Both, however, are rather standard common fouls and within the range of a normal basketball play. I understand the POE that intentional fouls are being missed, but I think the POE overly complicates things by introducing the concept of playing the ball. A defense shouldn't suddenly be required to "play the ball" in the last minutes of a game when they aren't required to do so during the majority of the game. Heck, the first thing that kids learn on defense is to watch the opponent's body, not the ball. IMO, the definition "neutralizing an opponent's obvious advantageous position" is pretty clear to me and would include grabbing from behind/out of position, which is where this comes into play most often. |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2016 NCAA Rule Change: OBS - "About to Receive" vs. "In the act of Catching" | teebob21 | Softball | 15 | Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:16pm |
| NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology | Duffman | Basketball | 17 | Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:15pm |
| Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game? | fiasco | Basketball | 46 | Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am |
| ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight | pizanno | Basketball | 27 | Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am |