c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.

Sounds like intent to me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The rule doesn't say there's no relevance to premeditation. It just says it may or may not be premeditated. Just like it says the severity of the act is not the sole determiner.

Your statement about hard fouls is a local/personal practice or interpretation. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't try to sell it as if your interpretation is rules based while somebody else's which uses intent or premeditation is not.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Agree. Intent or lack thereof can be a factor but it isn't necessarily a factor.

Isn't Necessarily A Factor ...
 

Get it. Thanks.

Well stated. As a stand-alone statement, I still believe that there is some room for "hard" contact (as long as it's illegal contact) fouls in a rule based discussion regarding one type of intentional foul (excessive contact intentional foul).

Not saying there isn't. I'm saying there's also room to talk about intent and premeditation, which you discounted as not rules-based.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Lesson Learned ...
 

Exactly.

I used to (incorrectly) think of excessive contact intentional fouls as a completely separate category of intentional fouls, but they're not, all intentional fouls still fall under the heading: Personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act.

Raymond's posts forced me to read the actual rule, as written, more carefully and in a new light.

IAABO Survey Says …
 

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

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...9E%2Fh4Q%3D%3D

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

As the shooter becomes airborne to attempt a try, the defender also becomes airborne and makes a legitimate attempt to play the ball when contact causes the shooter to go to the floor. In plays such as these develop, officials should always consider the possibility of an intentional foul. The shooter is airborne and vulnerable. An intentional foul may be warranted if defensive players contact these airborne shooters and drive them to the floor.

In this play, the defender does appear to have a legitimate chance to block the shot. The contact he commits on the shooter is torso to torso contact due to the momentum by the defender moving toward the shooter. The defender does not push or drag the shooter down with the arms or appear to do anything excessive. This is a normal basketball play, and the rules support a common foul being assessed on this play. (86% of respondents would rule this a common foul).

If defenders have no reasonable chance at playing the ball and cause excessive contact on airborne shooters officials should rule an intentional foul. What makes this rule challenging is there are times when defenders make a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player and cause excessive contact and be charged with an intentional foul. Officials should master this rule and be willing to rule on excessive contact when it occurs.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a personal foul 86%. This is an intentional foul 12% (including me). This is not a foul 2%.

I guess that I've been working too many freshman games and middle school games the past three years. Losing a sense of what the "big boys" can, and cannot, safely do.

"common" in the sense of it being a generic, happens all the time, average, basic foul. Not the officially defined "Common" foul.

Uncommon Foul ...
 

Already understood. Also liked JRutledge's description of a "normal" foul.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.E...=0&w=300&h=300