Fun With Excessive Contact …

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course this is entirely subjective and everyone has slightly different parameters for calling an intentional foul.

Early returns from IAABO members are favoring a common foul.

Oddly, one IAABO member makes a comment defending a common foul call but still describes the contact "hard". Probably a when in Rome thing, but here in my little corner of Connecticut we call "hard" contact an excessive contact intentional foul. We even have an unauthorized signal for excessive "hard" contact intentional fouls, after displaying cross over head, bring both arms down hard to sides. We're even instructed to say, "Hard foul", when displaying the signal.

Other comments defending a common foul call describe a lack of a premeditated intent to harm, which is not relevant.

...

Lack of Intent to harm is no more irrelevant than how "hard" the foul was.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Common.

This would be excessive if black (blue?) continued to run / jump over the end line (not that this is a specific demarcation). He tried to go vertical to block the shot and just failed.

[Camron Rust]

Common foul and I'm not sure why it would even be a question. This is garden variety defensive contact. Do we really want to turn this into volleyball?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Common foul and I'm not sure why it would even be a question. This is garden variety defensive contact. Do we really want to turn this into volleyball?

The question is because there has been such a focus on player safety, we over-exaggerate when safety is supposed to be emphasized. The very same thing happens in football where we used to penalize every hit to the head, even if other things factored into the play and the rule. So people think any foul that puts someone down hard, it must be an intentional foul in nature, when for decades this was a garden variety foul. Rarely do players get upset even on this kind of foul, because the player is just trying to stop the basket. He made a mistake, but nothing needs to be upgraded.

I get it, we also do not do a good job being consistent on calling these either, but we have people that think they have to save the day and rule everything higher than a common foul.

That is why IMO we people are debating this.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Common foul

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Common.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Common foul

Nit-picking. No offense intended to bob jenkins, Camron Rust, and Kansas Ref. Act of shooting isn't a common foul.

Also nit-picked IAABO, an intentional foul can be a personal foul, not always mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a normal foul

Not a defined NFHS term, but I know exactly what JRutledge means in this situation (as I did for bob jenkins and Kansas Ref).

There has got to be better classification system.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nit-picking. No offense intended to bob jenkins, Camron Rust, and Kansas Ref. Act of shooting isn't a common foul.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Lack of Intent to harm is no more irrelevant than how "hard" the foul was.

That is true by NFHS standards. A legally set blind screen can lead to very hard contact, and a train wreck, possibly with broken bones, yet, by rule it's not considered an excessive contact intentional foul because it's not illegal contact.

My local standards make "hard" illegal contact synonymous with an excessive contact intentional foul. We even have our own local unauthorized (by IAABO) signal for excessive "hard" contact intentional fouls and state, "Hard foul" (not "Hard contact").

Hard illegal contact can be considered excessive illegal contact and thus, an excessive contact intentional foul, by local standards, or by NFHS standards.

The word "excessive" (and even the word "hard") invites the factor of subjectivity.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Lack of Intent to harm is no more irrelevant than how "hard" the foul was.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hard illegal contact can be considered excessive illegal contact and thus, an excessive contact intentional foul ... by NFHS standards.

Where intentional fouls, by rule, can be premeditated with intent to harm, or not premeditated with intent to harm, also by rule, I doubt that excessive contact intentional fouls could be for "soft" contact. Other types of intentional fouls could certainly be for "soft" contact, but not excessive contact intentional fouls, those will mostly be about "hard" (illegal) contact.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Where intentional fouls, by rule, can be premeditated with intent to harm, or not premeditated with intent to harm, also by rule, I doubt that excessive contact intentional fouls could be for "soft" contact. Other types of intentional fouls could certainly be for "soft" contact, but not excessive contact intentional fouls, those will mostly be about "hard" (illegal) contact.

Excessive contact means excessive contact, it does not mean hard. That's you making up your own definition, and then saying it's rules based.

Excessive contact could be a blow to the head that is not hard. Excessive contact can be a blow to the groin that is not hard. Excessive contact can be undercutting somebody.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Excessive contact means excessive contact, it does not mean hard.

Agree, but there is some relevance (even a small amount) between the excessive contact with the word hard, however there is absolutely no relevance in using premeditation, or no premeditation, with respect to intentional fouls (it says so right in the rule).

Hard: Done with a great deal of force or strength.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree, but there is some relevance (even a small amount) between the excessive contact with the word hard, however there is absolutely no relevance in using premeditation, or no premeditation, with respect to intentional fouls (it says so right in the rule).

Hard: Done with a great deal of force or strength.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree, but there is some relevance (even a small amount) between the excessive contact with the word hard, however there is absolutely no relevance in using premeditation, or no premeditation, with respect to intentional fouls (it says so right in the rule).

Hard: Done with a great deal of force or strength.

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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 who 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.