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

[Freddy]

Given that a foul intentionally committed "...may be strategic to stop the clock..." (POE #3), and "Fouling near the end of a game is an acceptable coaching and playing strategy" (4.19.3D COMMENT), the expectations expressed in this year's POE seem to mandate that we call "Intentional Foul" on any end-of-game foul committed in order to stop the clock which is done:
...without playing the ball
...against a player away from the ball
...regardless of the degree of severity or lack thereof.

Question #1: Am I reading this POE correctly? Anything I'm missing?

Question #2: With those parameters in mind, am I correct that each of these "end-of-game" fouls they want us to instruct officials to call "Intentional", in spite of the minimal level of severity?

They Want Us to Call This "Intentional", Right? #1

They Want Us to Call This "Intentional", Right? #2

They Want Us to Call This "Intentional", Right? #3

They Want Us to Call This "Intentional", Right? #4

They Want Us to Call This "Intentional", Right? #5

They Want Us to Call This "Intentional", Right? #6

They Want Us to Call This "Intentional", Right? #7

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Given that a foul intentionally committed "...may be strategic to stop the clock..." (POE #3), and "Fouling near the end of a game is an acceptable coaching and playing strategy" (4.19.3D COMMENT), the expectations expressed in this year's POE seem to mandate that we call "Intentional Foul" on any end-of-game foul committed in order to stop the clock which is done:
...without playing the ball
...against a player away from the ball
...regardless of the degree of severity or lack thereof.

I think "any" overstates it a bit. For example, if the defense runs through a legally set screen, or illegally re-routes a cutter, that wouldn't be intentional. But, grabbing a player away from the ball would be -- no matter how severe.

[dbogcpa]

I think all except maybe #4 would be intentional under the new guidelines. I wouldn't have a problem calling all of them intentional.

[Smitty]

Maybe #5 & 6. The rest probably not for me.

[Raymond]

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.

[bucky]

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.

[deecee]

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.

[crosscountry55]

I thought #3 I might call IF. The rest.....not pretty in some cases but also not warranting of any additional penalty given the game situation and strategy IMHO.

I've said this before and will continue to say it until I'm convinced otherwise: I don't believe the committee and assignors are on the same page here. Assignors would usually prefer not to get phone calls. Calling the fouls exemplified in the videos as IFs would probably result in a lot of phone calls. Unlike the freedom of movement initiative a few years back, I don't feel like there's enough of a groundswell of support over changing the way we approach end of game situations so as to overcome officiating inertia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guys. Don't overcomplicate this issue. Take fouls at the end of the game ARE a thing. Not all take fouls are INT. Don't call all take fouls INT. Use your judgement, if a take foul is egregious enough then certainly call INT.

For me the only INT that Freddy posted are 5 and 6. The rest are simple take fouls. 3 could be but I'm leaning not, but must be addressed with a warning.

[Pantherdreams]

There must be a legitimate play on the ball or basketball play. What you deem as legitimate maybe different.

That being said after our local association meeting a message was sent to coaches making sure they understood that players not making a play on the ball would be called tighter than it had been previously.

Also regardless of intent, intentional or common the contact must still meet the threshold for being a foul. Some of these where there is no play on the ball but contact is minimal if you don't want to call INT you can probably pass on the contact.

Most of the plays presented I'm about 50-50 on whether I could pass on the foul or judge it to be playing the ball or a common hand checking foul. Based on the POE though on the ones I'm not judging that way they would be called INT.

[BryanV21]

I've had a handful of times when a player barely touched the ball handler, so I didn't even call a foul even though I knew they wanted the foul to stop the clock. Which I believe is what Pantherdreams was getting at.

As for IFs... if I can see some sort of attempt at the ball, and the foul is not "hard", then I'm not going to call it an IF. If I get a call from an assignor later about an IF, I want there to be no doubt it was the right call, not a "yeah, but" thing.

[jeremy341a]

#5 and #6 are IF

[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 typical foul 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.

[BryanV21]

I'll remind coaches about making sure their players go for the ball.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[HokiePaul]

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.