Fun With Tangled Feet ...

[JRutledge]

Just a shooting foul.

Peace

[BillyMac]

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...7JIOkt9bBP.mp4

IAABO Play Commentary Correct Answer: This is a personal foul.

This is a challenging play. It appears the defender and the ball handler get tangled on the lay-up attempt, and this causes the shooter to go to the floor. 65% of respondents see this contact as "accidental" and rule this to be a common foul. It should be noted that contact that is considered intentional may or may not be premeditated. (4-19-3) So the fact this contact may not be deliberate does not necessarily mean the contact should be ruled to be an intentional foul.

The officials should still consider other aspects of the intentional foul rule. One of those aspects is the concept of excessive contact. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor is considered an intentional foul. (4-19-3d) Airborne shooters are very vulnerable. Contact from behind that takes away a shooter's ability to land safely on their feet should often be ruled to be excessive and penalized with an intentional foul. In this play, the covering officials did not feel the contact was excessive and ruled this to be a common foul.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a personal foul 66% (including me). This should have been ruled an Intentional Foul 34%.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... the covering officials did not feel the contact was excessive and ruled this to be a common foul.

Obviously, we all know that this is 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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course, “This is a personal foul” would cover both answers. Select it and you can't be wrong (with only two choices), you could bet your house on it.

[Camron Rust]

This is not an intentional foul. I'm shocked that 34% said this should be ruled intentional. To me, it isn't even close.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is not an intentional foul. I'm shocked that 34% said this should be ruled intentional. To me, it isn't even close.

Because we have people in our midst that think that anytime a player goes to the floor from contact behind, we have to call something more than a regular type of foul. So there you go. Unfortunately, they only see plays and not study the rules or why the rules say what they say. I get it on some level, but we have people that are not students of the game.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is not an intentional foul. I'm shocked that 34% said this should be ruled intentional. To me, it isn't even close.

Its one of those plays that looks worse than it actually is if you dont see how it actually happens. Its why I cringe a bit when I hear, "If bodies hit the floor, we have to have a foul". You need to know why they got to the floor first.

[BillyMac]

With an apology to Bernardo Bertolucci.

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Its one of those plays that looks worse than it actually is if you don't see how it actually happens.

Watch the aftermath and it's actually the Red fouler who gets the worst of the tangled legs. While the White foulee gets up almost immediately, the Red foulee remains on the floor.