Fouling bad ft shooter away from ball

[bob jenkins]

I think the current rules / guidelines have some statement to the effect that "here are some things to consider when deciding whether a foul is an F1 (or equivalent)...."

They might add "whether the same player has been fouled away from the ball repeatedly in a short period of time"

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think you are looking for something that is beyond the scope of this forum

This is what I was thinking as well. Thedewed, I don't disagree with you, but I don't think it could be punished in game, unless one of those fouls was so clearly flagrant that they could call it as such. This is a bigger issue. Actually no it isn't, it's not a bigger issue yet, but it could easily become one.

The best suggestions I've seen so far also comes from Bob:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think the current rules / guidelines have some statement to the effect that "here are some things to consider when deciding whether a foul is an F1 (or equivalent)...."

They might add "whether the same player has been fouled away from the ball repeatedly in a short period of time"

But if even considered, it wouldn't be until after the season.

[thedewed]

I appreciate all of your thoughts. I'm simply thinking it through logically, and I believe that what OU did any team from grade school up could do with about 5 minutes of instruction, if interpreted the way some on here are saying, that those fouls were simple fouls.

Interestingly, aTm didn't go down the road at all this past Saturday, but I am pretty sure some team in conference will do it, particularly when they are at home. I expect it to happen in the K State game tonight.

And as I say, my interpretation would be if somebody is playing basketball, or essentially intentionally fouling. If I believe it is intentional conduct, even if not excessive or flagrant, and particularly if off-ball, I believe the proper interpretation of the rule book is still that it was suffer the additional penalty. I hesitate to say F1 because I think that misleads people as to what conduct is intended to be penalized under the rule. Nothing has happened in the rules to change them from where they were a decade ago as to intentional conduct; I just don't think this particular strategy has been deployed to the point where it has caught the attention of the higher ups. Hopefully it will be clarified before the NCAA tourney when it really counts for everyone.

I also believe a factor that has confused the issue is the greater restriction on doing things to impede free movement. Again, that shouldn't, and I don't believe it did, have changed the conduct that was intended to be hit with the extra penalty. In fact, I'd argue it makes this conduct even more obviously intentional, unless the fouler is mentally challenged.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

And as I say, my interpretation would be if somebody is playing basketball, or essentially intentionally fouling. If I believe it is intentional conduct, even if not excessive or flagrant, and particularly if off-ball, I believe the proper interpretation of the rule book is still that it was suffer the additional penalty. I hesitate to say F1 because I think that misleads people as to what conduct is intended to be penalized under the rule. Nothing has happened in the rules to change them from where they were a decade ago as to intentional conduct; I just don't think this particular strategy has been deployed to the point where it has caught the attention of the higher ups. Hopefully it will be clarified before the NCAA tourney when it really counts for everyone.

Well, you will need to take this up with the NCAA so that they agree with your position or the NF (without the video and training) to do the same.

Originally Posted by thedewed

I also believe a factor that has confused the issue is the greater restriction on doing things to impede free movement. Again, that shouldn't, and I don't believe it did, have changed the conduct that was intended to be hit with the extra penalty. In fact, I'd argue it makes this conduct even more obviously intentional, unless the fouler is mentally challenged.

Again, this is above most of our pay grade. We have nothing to do with what an interpretation says or how it should be done.

Peace

[thedewed]

with all due respect, I do think that some of you are only considering whether the conduct is excessive, giving greater weight to the change of the word 'intentional' in the definition to 'flagrant' , when that change was only made to 'clarify' that conduct didn't need to be intentional to be penalized. That is the unintended loophole here in my opinion. Intentional contact should still be subject to the greater penalty if you believe it was intentional. And NCAA officials at this point are left to interpret what is intended by the language. And I know that we used to be taught that conduct off ball that was an intentional foul...was an intentional foul. More discretion was involved when the conduct was on-ball. None of that has been changed by anything the NCAA has said in guidelines, rules, interpretations, that I've found.

I also think a great change to the rule for many reasons would be a team always has the option to take the ball out of bounds rather than shoot free throws. A team should never be able to use fouling to its advantage would make for a better game, and shorten the game as well. Some teams would take the 2 fts of course, with a good ft shooter, in that there is always greater danger of a steal on throw-ins.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by thedewed

with all due respect, I do think that some of you are only considering whether the conduct is excessive, giving greater weight to the change of the word 'intentional' in the definition to 'flagrant' , when that change was only made to 'clarify' that conduct didn't need to be intentional to be penalized. That is the unintended loophole here in my opinion. Intentional contact should still be subject to the greater penalty if you believe it was intentional. And NCAA officials at this point are left to interpret what is intended by the language. And I know that we used to be taught that conduct off ball that was an intentional foul...was an intentional foul. More discretion was involved when the conduct was on-ball. None of that has been changed by anything the NCAA has said in guidelines, rules, interpretations, that I've found.

You would be wrong. I do not only consider the issue of excessive. But if I saw these plays individually, I would have thought nothing special about the plays. And to suggest that we know for sure how "intentional" something is so that we can get directly into the mind of someone.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by thedewed

with all due respect,

Are you an official?

[thedewed]

Used to officiate high school then college, had kid that played and haven't gone back, would rather use the energy to still play actually. I used to ref pro-am summer league with current NBA and D1 players in the area and had no problem. I know how to call the game and players at that level liked the way I called the game, never had any issues.

Knocking a player off his line as he is running from the low block to set a high ball screen is not normal basketball. Nor is bodying and hipping a guy that isn't doing anything other than standing around, albeit not in the corner. How anyone that watches the game would think those were anything other than intentional is surprising to me. You have to use common sense out there.

I'm pretty sure some team will go down this road since the door seems to be open for it, the stakes are so high. I don't know what the right answer is, but I know what the right answer should be to promote the best possible game.