Fouling bad ft shooter away from ball

[JRutledge]

Here are the plays. Talk away.



Peace

[Raymond]

I think Mr. Freeman does an excellent job of fouling as part of normal defensive maneuvers. None of those are F1's IMO.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Funny, when I told the player what the consequence would be if I called his foul, he told me I was terrible, and my response was "This isn't the NBA".

I went to his AC during the next time-out to explain the situation and AC immediately told me he knew what I was talking about and that he would handle it.

Did you do this during the time when B1 shot the free throws from the "You're terrible" technical foul?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I think Mr. Freeman does an excellent job of fouling as part of normal defensive maneuvers. None of those are F1's IMO.

Agree....all of them are well disguised. You could easily argue that each of them was a legitimate defensive play that you'd see throughout the game.

It is only the connection between them all that would lead you to suspect they were deliberate.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I think Mr. Freeman does an excellent job of fouling as part of normal defensive maneuvers. None of those are F1's IMO.

I would agree that the player did an excellent job of following the coaches instruction. Also, I think calling an F1 would be tough based on how he played the KU player. However, is this unsporting on Oklahoma's part? They are clearly trying to circumvent a rule. I don't think that what they are doing is in any way in accordance with the spirit of the rule.

Somewhat similar to a post within the last week about a team that was down intentionally turning the ball over and giving up layups. Nothing in the rules specifically prevents it, but its not in the spirit of the game. I realize these two situations are vastly different, but my point is that one team is clearly doing something that is "not basketball." Probably a bigger issue than what could be fixed within a single game though.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree....all of them are well disguised. You could easily argue that each of them was a legitimate defensive play that you'd see throughout the game.

It is only the connection between them all that would lead you to suspect they were deliberate.

Absolutely. And this is why it would be tough to penalize with an F1, but is some sort of unsporting T justifiable?

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Absolutely. And this is why it would be tough to penalize with an F1, but is some sort of unsporting T justifiable?

Dear God, NO! Where are you going to go next? T up the team the second time they foul on the ball at the end of the game because you know they really aren't doing anything other than trying to foul and its unsporting? You either have an FF1/intentional or you've got nothing.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Absolutely. And this is why it would be tough to penalize with an F1, but is some sort of unsporting T justifiable?

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Dear God, NO! Where are you going to go next? T up the team the second time they foul on the ball at the end of the game because you know they really aren't doing anything other than trying to foul and its unsporting? You either have an FF1/intentional or you've got nothing.

Agree with so cal......not going to a T for this. While it very well may be designed to stop the clock and put a bad shooter on the line, it is also a legitimate defensive play that you could see at any time in any game. There is some chance, albeit small, that the player actually was playing defense and just fouled.

[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.

[Raymond]

Can always write Art Hyland and ask him.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[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?