Fouling bad ft shooter away from ball

[bob jenkins]

Didn't see it, but as described this should have been an F1 (NCAAM), IP (NCAA), or Unsporting (NCAAW) foul.

[thedewed]

I haven't seen or heard anyone say that, we'll known officials on the game. He wasn't trying to post up or involved in the play. Scrub was in to execute. That's what I think reading the rule. Intentional no longer appears in the book, but I thought that was because a play don't have to be intentional to fit? Interesting, I hope someone official addresses it for all

[frezer11]

I'd like to see some video on it if possible. I didn't see the game, but have a buddy who's a life long Jayhawk, and he was telling me the same thing.

[thedewed]

So apparently in college hack-a-shaq is in play, you can file someone off ball as long as you're not bear hugging them if you just body them knock them off their path when they're running or did your forearm into them, you can put them to the line whether the ball is in their hands are not correct? Because that's what happened. I don't have a way to get video on it, but I assure you this is going to be in a bigger issue in the next week or two. It used to be when I left college that if it was away from the ball like that it was going to be intentional. I think the word intentional was taken out of the rule in about 2011 to clarify that contact didn't have to be intentional to be penalized when the crazy over elbows to the Head became a deal. Interesting

Originally Posted by thedewed

So apparently in college hack-a-shaq is in play, you can file someone off ball as long as you're not bear hugging them if you just body them knock them off their path when they're running or did your forearm into them, you can put them to the line whether the ball is in their hands are not correct? Because that's what happened. I don't have a way to get video on it, but I assure you this is going to be in a bigger issue in the next week or two. It used to be when I left college that if it was away from the ball like that it was going to be intentional. I think the word intentional was taken out of the rule in about 2011 to clarify that contact didn't have to be intentional to be penalized when the crazy over elbows to the Head became a deal. Interesting

The rule puts officials in a really tough position, especially when the fouling team is smart and fouls the kid in such a way that it seems like just another foul. I'm sure the officials caught on to what they were doing, but if the fouls are subtle then there's nothing really they can do. We should expect some clarification from JD/Art on this front though.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by thedewed

So apparently in college hack-a-shaq is in play, you can file someone off ball as long as you're not bear hugging them if you just body them knock them off their path when they're running or did your forearm into them, you can put them to the line whether the ball is in their hands are not correct? Because that's what happened. I don't have a way to get video on it, but I assure you this is going to be in a bigger issue in the next week or two. It used to be when I left college that if it was away from the ball like that it was going to be intentional. I think the word intentional was taken out of the rule in about 2011 to clarify that contact didn't have to be intentional to be penalized when the crazy over elbows to the Head became a deal. Interesting

Intentional fouls are F1's in college.

HS or college, the first time this is attempted I'm telling the offender that if I blow my whistle it will be for an intentional/F1. Then when I get a chance I will inform the HC or an AC from that team.

Actually had this situation in a HS game last week and did exactly I say above.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Intentional fouls are F1's in college.

HS or college, the first time this is attempted I'm telling the offender that if I blow my whistle it will be for an intentional/F1. Then when I get a chance I will inform the HC or an AC from that team.

Actually had this situation in a HS game last week and did exactly I say above.

So wait, did you call the common foul first, and then give the warning? Or did you see them attempting the foul, and chose not to call it and warn them to stop or it will be intentional?

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by frezer11

So wait, did you call the common foul first, and then give the warning? Or did you see them attempting the foul, and chose not to call it and warn them to stop or it will be intentional?

I believe he is saying the latter and I've done the same thing in a HS game.

I told the kid, this is not the NBA and his actions would be deemed an intentional foul.

He stopped immediately. Next opportunity I had, I informed the coach as well.

[thedewed]

A scrub fouled out in 2 minutes late in the ou ku game, it was very obvious what he was doing, all away from the ball, and no f1 was called. All but one were completely away from a focal point of play and clearly to put a bad ft shooter at the line. Won't be the last we will see of it in the big 12. Clarification is in order.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Didn't see it, but as described this should have been an F1 (NCAAM), IP (NCAA), or Unsporting (NCAAW) foul.

I stand by my answer of "as described" -- but I would not describe the video as the OP did.

[thedewed]

Okey dokey, not rocket science and not difficult to disguise. I'd say only 1 of the 4 should have been a regular foul. This is hack a shaq and we will hear more about it, because more teams will use it, particularly against this player, and actually you could do this with scrubs and affect 10 to 15 possessions a game. Other than the one where he is postin up, it is very obvious what is going on. You could teach a grade schooler to do that. I ask the guys currently in D1, if these aren't F1, does that mean a team disguising it in same manner could do it throughout the game? Fouler was a scrub, at what point as it repeats itself, if ever, do you call it f1? Because 15 times with 3 scrubs would be very easy and one third of possessions. Interested to hear thoughts as to where you'd draw the line, because we all know a grade schooler could be taught to be overzealous in such a manner. This wasn't Oscar worthy conduct. Based on repetition, but same conduct, when would you upgrade it to f1?

[thedewed]

seriously, the time to clarify this is before someone does it with 2 scrubs/10 fouls, or 3/15 fouls, rather than 1 scrub/5 fouls as OU did. Is it somehow clear somewhere how this is to be handled if done in the same manner? Any defender can hip, forearm, body any player on the floor in the same manner, and unless the player is standing in the corner you guys won't call it an F1? Where is the line? If no one on here can even speak to where the line is, that is worrisome, because it is more likely to be a controversy if not cleared up beforehand, rather than addressed after the fact.

[griblets]

It's obvious you don't like the answers given. All who are not KU fans are providing unbiased feedback, and they all seem to be in agreement.

Maybe the KU player being fouled should spend more time practicing free throws. Becoming a better free throw shooter would be the best deterrent.

[thedewed]

Originally Posted by griblets

It's obvious you don't like the answers given. All who are not KU fans are providing unbiased feedback, and they all seem to be in agreement.

Maybe the KU player being fouled should spend more time practicing free throws. Becoming a better free throw shooter would be the best deterrent.

I am a KU fan and a basketball fan in general, and am far more interested in the answer because I assume it is more clear than the answer given thus far. Square it with the Seton Hall game in the Dance last year

https://www.sbnation.com/college-bas...desi-rodriguez

No question what happened...Late in close game, in transition defender pushes dribbler from the side with a force that is called regular foul 99 times out of 100, BUT the players feet INADVERTENTLY get caught up with each other such that the dribbler goes flying. Officials change it to an F1 after review, wrongfully in my opinion, and Collins confirms to the media afterwards that it was the right call because it wasn't a legitimate attempt to player the player or ball, and said "“When a player puts two hands on the back and doesn’t make any attempt to play the ball or the player, get in front of him, it’s an F1 foul"

My view is whether the conduct is 'legitimate' basketball. Bumping a cutter could be legitimate if the player is cutting towards the ball. But if a player is moving to set a ball screen and is getting forearmed and hipped off his stride, it is quite obvious that it is not basketball, it is conduct designed to get a foul call. Only 1 of those fouls in that video was arguably legit, and that was when the KU player was posting up and a wing player was looking to make an entry pass. The rest was crystal clear intentional and not legitimate.

I ask for opinion as to clarification as to when a pattern of this conduct would rise to an F1, because as I said, a grade schooler could pull it off. OU did it with 5 fouls and a scrub player and got away with it, 4 of them in just a couple of minutes, how many fouls with players deep from the bench before you rise to F1? Do you warn?

I don't know that it will continue with KU, as the player involved actually has very nice touch on his post game, particularly hooks, and I think he will improve. But it will be tested, and I don't think the rules are clear, at all. The word 'intentional' was taken out primarily to clarify that intent wasn't necessary for F1 in the initial craze of elbows to head. But I don't think it was meant to in any way back off the fact that conduct deemed intentional should be F1. Maybe I'm wrong, but the editorial language when the rule was changed simply referred to intent not being necessary. It's interesting, and I don't know that I've seen a team take advantage of the loophole to the extent that OU did last week.

No one has even attempted to address the issue of if the identical conduct was repeated by players at the end of the bench, at what point do you warn or F1? That no one will even throw out an opinion is testament to the grey area the question presents. My view is that at least 2, if not 3, of those fouls should be considered F1. The quality of the acting job shouldn't be protection, the legitimacy of the conduct given play and circumstance should govern.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by thedewed

But if a player is moving to set a ball screen and is getting forearmed and hipped off his stride, it is quite obvious that it is not basketball, it is conduct designed to get a foul call.

Or it is conduct to try to prevent a player from setting a ball screen.

Originally Posted by thedewed

No one has even attempted to address the issue of if the identical conduct was repeated by players at the end of the bench, at what point do you warn or F1?

Are you asking officials to evaluate where a player is on the team's depth chart, before judging an action on the floor?