Fouling bad ft shooter away from ball
 

In the ku ou game last night, ou fouled ku's big intentionally away from ball 5 possessions in a row. It was obvious to the point the big went to the corner and ou went over and put his hands on him. How is that not a flagrant 1 under section 2 or 4, as a non bball play or a play designed to simply stop the clock? What do theyou tell you college guys these days? At one point I thought you couldn't foul away from the ball like that without the extra penalty

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Did this happen in the last few minutes of the game?

Peace

From the play-by-play, it looks like the first foul is at 3:37 of 2nd half.

For my clarification, you said there were multiple fouls that took place after that incident?

Peace

Correct, multiple fouls on the same player. For the record, I didn't actually see it myself live, I just want to see if these are truly off-ball fouls that should've been F1's, and if not, how were they disguised as to get a common-foul designation.

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.

Here are the plays. Talk away.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1CSiBqh8LFY" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Can always write Art Hyland and ask him.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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.

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

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

You do understand where all this could lead, it's nuts to not clarify before somebody really abuses it, perhaps in a tourney game. As you are presenting it, a team with a 50% FT shooter could, actually should if the idea is to maximize probability of winning, see 1/4 of their possessions with that guy at the FT line. If a team is average 1.2 points per possession, the math is quite tempting, particularly over the 1 and 1's each half. I have not seen a team try this other than OU, so if the window is open and NCAA admin of officials doesn't clarify, someone will push the envelope. I don't really care, just find it interesting.

but to answer your question I guess, no, you rarely if ever see a player trying to prevent another player from moving in open court to set a ball screen, and it is quite clear what the intent is here, particularly given the fact that the defender involved is off the end of the bench.

You position, I take it, is as long as it isn't a bear hug or 2 hand push, and as long as the fouled player isn't standing in the corner, it's not an F1? I'm trying to exercise common sense on 'intent', and yes, whether the player committing the repeated fouls is from the end of the bench is relevant to that issue.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen anyone associated with the KU program even hint that they should have been F1, that is not their style, I'm just curious whether actual D1 officials have been given any better guidance on how to assess or handle this situation if it comes up. Apparently the answer is no. I watch a lot of basketball and have never seen it off-ball like this. No need to foul the player with the ball late anymore, apparently, as long as you don't bear hug or push with your hands. I'm just trying to get it defined with a little more clarity. Surely it is an interesting question for people that officiate, and please don't tell me it's clear to anyone as to how to handle it? If so, answer, if that exact conduct happens on fouls 7-9 and a couple more in the first half with a player that isn't normally playing, and then again in the 2nd half for 5 fouls beginning with 7-9 and then a couple more, with another player that doesn't play other than those few minutes, are they all common fouls? In this case, the player that fouled out in 2 minutes got quite an ovation as he was ushered to the bench. No one in the place had any doubt what was going on. My question, could it happen with another 1,2,3 players? where is the line drawn? If there is no answer as of now, we'll probably have a better idea by the end of this season.

Just for reference Kansas averages ~73 possessions per game. With the range being from Virginia at 63.4 to the top of ~85 possessions/game.

https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...sions-per-game

Thanks, so it would take 3 scrubs to impact 20 % of their possessions. Doesn't strike me as within the spirit of the rules

This is an abasement of the sport and should be noticed and punished. Once it's clear of the intent, the player and coach should be quietly warned. Perhaps after the second questionable foul.

That said, Kansas didn't help matters by keeping the player involved in the offense by cutting, screening and posting up. Made it much easier to disguise these fouls.

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

When I played, once I started to recognize the opponent's offense, I would regularly do what I could to prevent screeners from getting to their spot. It is most definitely a basketball play.

Like I said previously, you need to write Art Hyland, because nobody in this forum is on the rules committee nor did any of us work the KU/OU game.

And in my view, none of those fouls came remotely close to being F1's.

A foul is punished -- as are repeated fouls, which are penalized more severely after 7 and then again after 10 each half.

I'm not sure why people are so worked up about this. It is a strategy that is limited in its use (limits to roster sizes and 5 fouls per player) and has a very easy counter strategy -- namely substituting a better free throw player into the game. I don't see it as any different than fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock.

If this became such a problem, I think it would need to be addressed with a major rules change (like when the shot clock was added to avoid stall offense). I don't advocate this, but something like making the bonus FTs optional (teams could choose to take the ball OOB instead) would be a better solution than trying to having officials consider a players skill at shooting FTs and how far down the depth chart the fouler is when determining whether or not to rule a common or intentional/FF1

Really?

And we determine intent all the time. Is there even any debate as to what was happening in this game?

There's no need for new rules. Maybe a POE, but the rules to prevent this kind of gamesmanship already exist.

I did not see a lot wrong with any of these fouls. I saw fouls that could have taken place in any other aspect of the game. If that is the case, then just call the foul and move on. It was clear what they were doing, but it was done in such a way that nothing stood out to the actual contact or situation. I would like to see if the NCAA even comments on this situation in any way.

Peace

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"

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:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Are you an official?

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.

Chucking the cutter, rerouting people, and bumping people off their spots have been around forever. That's why we have POE's on some of those things in different years. We have free games that tell us to look out for those things.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I know that, that is why you need to inject common sense into what they are up to. If it is constant and egregious, you know they are trying to draw a whistle. If they are intentionally fouling away from the ball, that is included in what we now call F1. KSU would have used it last night per the announcers, but they never got close enough to bother.

It not something that bothers me. I know how to call F1's when warranted. I also talk to players who are close to committing the intentional version of F1's.

Agreed

Interesting, head coach of K State said this morning on the radio that he was warned before the KU game last night in the officials pre-game about intentional-type fouling. John Higgins was the lead. So I think the crews take was a little tighter than what happened in those OU highlights.