Fun With Intentional Fouls ...
 

Is this an Intentional Foul? View the play and make a judgment as to whether or not this should have been ruled an Intentional Foul?

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...kNzH222P4Q.mp4

Three choices: This should have been ruled an Intentional Foul. This is correctly ruled a Personal Foul. The defensive player loses his footing and this should have been ruled incidental.

Note: I know that and intentional foul can be a personal foul and vice versa, but we all know what IAABO means.

My comment: This is correctly ruled a Personal Foul. Not intentional. Not excessive contact.

Simple personal foul. No intent, not excessive, just got the feet tangled up.

I agree.

If I felt the player had stepped on his foot with intent, I move past an intentional and go to a flagrant. I'm not sure trying to trip someone about to shoot a layup or stepping on the back of their leg/foot is appropriately penalized with 'just' an intentional foul...you're looking to hurt the kid.

ACC officials would disagree with you.

Are those advocating merely a personal foul giving enough consideration to 4-19-3a?
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

Based on those words, I lean towards deeming this an intentional personal foul. The player coming from behind bears the risk of attempting to make a play from that position.

Are you implying there was an ACC play that I am not aware of, or are you legit saying, in NCAA/ACC play that that particular play, if deemed intentional and direct, would not warrant a flagrant foul?

I’m saying that several ACC officials did not assess a Flagrant 2, the equivalent of an NFHS flagrant foul, when working games in which a Duke player deliberately tripped opponents.

That would be most fouls if taken in literally and in a vacuum. I interpret that to mean deliberate contact that neutralizes an obvious advantageous position....grabbing the shirt from behind, a bear hug that completely prevents the player from jumping or making any play, etc.

Call a common foul and move on.

Peace

Common Foul ???
 

Even when it's not a common foul?

4-19-2: A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.

Even if it's intentional, it's still a personal foul. I'd expect (despite all evidence to the contrary) IAABO to be more accurate. ;)

What Did IAABO Mean ???
 

Agree and agree, it's the reason I added the note:

I do think the implication is that a "Personal Foul" is a basic, unmodified personal foul. That is generally how everyone refers to them anyway.

See What I Did Here ...
 

A "Common" implication.

IAABO International Play Commentary …
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...kNzH222P4Q.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is correctly ruled a Personal Foul.

White #1 is on a breakaway and about to attempt a lay-up when contact occurs with the defender in red jersey (and illegal black undershirt) from behind, causing the shooter to go to the floor.

Intentional and Flagrant Fouls are a Point of Emphasis for the 2020-21 Season. The NFHS Rules Committee is concerned with the understanding of these rules and proper enforcement. A foul should be ruled an Intentional Foul when a player, while playing the ball, causes excessive contact.

In this play, it appears the feet of both the offensive and defensive players get tangled as the shooter is preparing for his lay-up attempt. This accidental contact causes the shooter to go to the floor and is properly ruled a common foul.

If the defender had caused excessive contact on the shooter, which forcefully took the shooter to the floor, the contact should be ruled to be an intentional personal foul.

68.6% of respondents that viewed this clip viewed this contact as a common foul, 28.4% saw the contact as intentional. Regardless of your viewpoint on this play, all officials need to be willing to rule intentional fouls when excessive contact occurs.

The NFHS Rules Committee does not consider it a basketball play when airborne shooters are taken forcefully to the floor. (Casebook 4.19.3 Situation B) When that occurs, officials need to assess an intentional personal foul.

4.19.3 Situation B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. As A1 begins the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds. Ruling: An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball. (4-11; 4-19-3d)

My added note: 4-19-2: A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is correctly ruled a Personal Foul 69% (including me); This should have been ruled an Intentional Foul 28%; The defensive player loses his footing and this should have been ruled incidental 3%.

Another added note from me: Even if it was ruled an intentional foul, it would still be a personal foul, so the only wrong answer would be incidental contact.