Personal Or Technical ???

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not all intentional fouls are deemed flagrant.

Not sure that the NFHS needs to change its terminology, but it might help me to better understand this issue.

I'm aware, but that is the issue with the terminology and it needs to be changed. There is no confusion at other levels the way it is with the NF terminology. An "Intentional Foul" does not have to be an intentional act either. But people will say, "But he did not do it on purpose." Rather bad IMO and confusing.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They need to remove the word intentional from the vocabulary so people will call it even when it isn't done intentionally.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... that is the issue with the terminology and it needs to be changed ... An "Intentional Foul" does not have to be an intentional act either.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1037598

[BillyMac]

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

A player, while in player control (holding the ball), frustrated by an annoyingly troublesome closely guarding defender, intentionally and deliberately (but not flagrantly, the illegal contact was not violent or savage) grabs the jersey of said defender (not a legitimate basketball play) and pulls him to the side and dribbles past said defender.

What's the call?

Can't be an intentional player control foul?

Can't be an intentional foul and a player control foul (one's common, one's not, can't be an uncommon common foul)?

Right?

No free throws because it's illegal contact by a player in control of the ball (holding the ball)?

Two free throws (no rebounders) because the illegal contact was intentional (jersey grab) and was not a legitimate basketball play?

Does the intentional aspect of this illegal contact trump the common player control aspect of this illegal contact?

Wasn't there a case play or annual interpretation regarding such?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can't be an intentional foul and a player control foul (one's common, one's not, can't be an uncommon common foul)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

I hate to break it to you, but no one can tell the difference.

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

[LRZ]

It's just my opinion, but, BillyMac, when you go off on these tangents with different factual scenarios, threads get tangled up. It's often hard to know which questions responses are addressing, situation A, B, C or X. Why not start new threads?

[Altor]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I hate to break it to you, but no one can tell the difference.

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

Don't need a case. Rule 4 is your friend. A common foul is a personal foul that is neither flagrant nor intentional. And a player control foul is defined as a common foul.

So, if the player with player control commits a flagrant or intentional foul, that foul cannot be common and therefor cannot be a PC foul.

If the player with player control grabbed a defender by the uniform and pulled him out of the way, that's an intentional foul, not a PC foul. Two shots for the player that was fouled and the ball to that team at the spot nearest the foul.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

...

It's apparently affecting your basic basketball senses also. What you typed is an Intentional Foul, as others have pointed out. You're thinking way too hard.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

It's apparently affecting your basic basketball senses also. What you typed is an Intentional Foul, as others have pointed out. You're thinking way too hard.

He is arguing with himself again, that is all.

Peace

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I hate to break it to you, but no one can tell the difference.

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

Perhaps NFHS Case 4.19.6 Situation B?

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."

Already knew it, but wanted a citation, and also wanted to continue the discussion comparing generic dictionary adjectives with NFHS rulebook definitions.

Originally Posted by Altor

... a common foul is a personal foul that is neither flagrant nor intentional. And a player control foul is defined as a common foul. So, if the player with player control commits a flagrant or intentional foul, that foul cannot be common and therefore cannot be a PC foul.

Good explanation.

Originally Posted by Raymond

... Intentional Foul, as others have pointed out. You're thinking way too hard.

Probably am.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He is arguing with himself again, that is all.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by bucky

Perhaps NFHS Case 4.19.6 Situation B? Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

Nice citation, thanks bucky.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

It's just my opinion, but, BillyMac, when you go off on these tangents with different factual scenarios, threads get tangled up. It's often hard to know which questions responses are addressing, situation A, B, C or X. Why not start new threads?

Good point, but in this thread there's a common theme of comparing generic dictionary adjectives with NFHS rulebook definitions.

[LRZ]

Common themes = common threads = tangles.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Common themes = common threads = tangles.

Agree to a point. The key is that I liberally use the "quote" feature to pair questions and answers. But again, you have a point.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bucky

Perhaps NFHS Case 4.19.6 Situation B?

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

And if the try went in, it would count.