Fun With Excessive Contact …
 

IAABO Make The Call Video

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

Is this excessive contact? Should this be ruled an intentional foul?

Three choices: This is an intentional foul. This is a personal foul. This is not a foul.

My comment: This is an intentional foul. White #14 was excessively contacted by defender Black #13, from Black #13’s entire left side, contact was made from the tips of his fingers all the way down to his shoes, causing White #14 to crash to the floor. Note: This intentional foul was also a personal foul.

Subjective ...
 

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 "personal" foul.

Oddly, one IAABO member makes a comment defending a "personal" 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" illegal 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 "personal" foul call describe a lack of a premeditated intent to harm, which is not relevant.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...04cd9e5f_m.jpg

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

Common foul here; legitimate play on the ball, followed by a hard fall due primarily to momentum from the torso-to-torso collision.

This is a normal foul IMO. The player was vulnerable, but he was not hurt and I think we can officiate the result too even though the player clearly was making a legitimate defense of the shot. The shooter got up pretty easily.

I have seen a lot worse.

Peace

Legitimate Play On The Ball ...
 

Agree on that point.

The only thing that would make this an intentional foul (F1 in NCAA-M), would be if there was excessive contact to A1's head. I can't tell whether or not there is from this video.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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.

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

Uncommon ???
 

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.

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.

Hard Foul ...
 

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.

Hard Contact Relevance ...
 

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

Some Relevance ...
 

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.