Player Control vs. Intentional Foul

[JB]

Airborne shooter A-1 intentionally fouls B-1. Ball enters basket. Official rules this an Intentional Foul. Do you count the basket since this is not a player control foul?

[mick]

Originally posted by JB
Airborne shooter A-1 intentionally fouls B-1. Ball enters basket. Official rules this an Intentional Foul. Do you count the basket since this is not a player control foul?

"...An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponents obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball."

JB,
By what definition has the Official ruled "Intentional".
Perhaps it could be "Flagrant". Perhaps "Player Control".
Perhaps the official kicked the description. Was the shooter still airborn? How can this occur?
mick

[BktBallRef]

By definition:
An intentional is not a common foul.
A player control foul is a common foul.

Therefore, if the ball was in flight when the foul occurred, yes, you would have to count the basket.

But do yourself a favor, JB. Don't call something like this. All you can do is get yourself into trouble. And if it's something you don't know how to penalize, you've really gotten yourself into trouble.

TH

[JB]

I'm reading from the 2000 NFHS Casebook, 4.19.6D which reads as follows:

"Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be a player control foul? Ruling: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul. (4-19-2, 3, 4)"

[mick]

Originally posted by JB
I'm reading from the 2000 NFHS Casebook, 4.19.6D which reads as follows:

"Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be a player control foul? Ruling: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul. (4-19-2, 3, 4)"

JB,
I am looking at your source, and I do not understand why NF would write that, with regard to an intentional foul.
mick

Originally posted by JB
Airborne shooter A-1 intentionally fouls B-1. Ball enters basket. Official rules this an Intentional Foul. Do you count the basket since this is not a player control foul?

I'm curious. Why was this foul NOT considered Player Control? If the shooter was airborne he was obviously still involved in continuous motion. Did the official decide it wasn't PC just because he determinded it to be Intentional?

If the official is going to insist that this is Intentional and not PC then I suppose he'll have to let the basket stand, but wouldn't it just be easier to call a PC foul and take the points away?

[walter]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
By definition:
An intentional is not a common foul.
A player control foul is a common foul.

Therefore, if the ball was in flight when the foul occurred, yes, you would have to count the basket.

But do yourself a favor, JB. Don't call something like this. All you can do is get yourself into trouble. And if it's something you don't know how to penalize, you've really gotten yourself into trouble.

TH

I agree, however, let's say the following occurs during the play. A1, while airborne attempting a try, shoves B1 in the face with one hand, releases the ball with the other, and the ball goes in. I'm obviously going to penalize the foul by A1. In my mind, I don't believe I can call this a player control foul so I have two choices, intentional or flagrant personal. In both cases, since it wasn't PC, I believe the basket counts and then you penalize the infraction by A1 depending upon which way you call it. If intentional, B1 gets two shots and then team B gets the ball at the spot nearest the foul. If flagrant personal foul, A1 is disqualified, two free throws to B1, ball to Team B at the spot nearest the foul.

[BktBallRef]

Walter,

That's really no any different than the play that JB described. You just went into a little more detail. I would call it the same way you did.


PDL,

I'm curious. Why was this foul NOT considered Player Control? If the shooter was airborne he was obviously still involved in continuous motion. Did the official decide it wasn't PC just because he determinded it to be Intentional?

It can't be a PC foul and an intentional foul. It has to be one or the other. A A PC foul is a common foul, a intentional foul is not.

TH

[Edited by BktBallRef on Oct 30th, 2000 at 03:56 PM]

[arref]

Don't look for something into the play.

I would see the play, let it continue, know the out come of that play and then call it. That particular play is a player control foul. contact by the offense.

[Hawks Coach]

Seems to me if you give an intentional foul, you have rewarded A1 immediately because the basket stands. B will get the possession in either case (PC or intentional), but must hit both free throws to get back where they were before the violation with the intentional. I can't see how you could ever give the intentional foul under these circumstances, because it helps A who committed the foul in the first place. No violation should ever give the advantage to the team that committed the violation.

Flagrant comes with the ejection. If it is bad enough to warrant a flagrant, I can see giving the flagrant foul, but both coaches will be going nuts over this one, A because you kicked his player out and B because you let the basket stand.

Sounds like someone ought to go to NF and suggest a rule clarification/change to state that an intentional or flagrant foul by the airborne shooter will result in basket being disallowed. I can't honestly believe that they would want this type of call to be made.

[rpwall]

Does NFHS Rule 4-19-5(c) mean an airborne shooter cannot commit an intentional or flagrant contact foul? i.e. does it say a foul by an airborne shooter takes precedence over an intentional foul?

Or, is it saying an airborne shooter can commit an intentional foul even though the ball may be dead?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by walter


I agree, however, let's say the following occurs during the play. A1, while airborne attempting a try, shoves B1 in the face with one hand, releases the ball with the other, and the ball goes in. I'm obviously going to penalize the foul by A1. In my mind, I don't believe I can call this a player control foul so I have two choices, intentional or flagrant personal. In both cases, since it wasn't PC, I believe the basket counts and then you penalize the infraction by A1 depending upon which way you call it. If intentional, B1 gets two shots and then team B gets the ball at the spot nearest the foul. If flagrant personal foul, A1 is disqualified, two free throws to B1, ball to Team B at the spot nearest the foul.

This play is different from the one that started this thread. In your play, you have an intentional foul, followed by the release of the ball. Since the foul causes the ball to become dead immediately, the shot is of no consequence.

In the original play, the ball was released, then the intentional foul occurred. Here, the ball does not become dead until the try ends, so the shot might count.

Hawks Coach said
Sounds like someone ought to go to NF and suggest a rule clarification/change to state that an intentional or flagrant foul by the airborne shooter will result in basket being disallowed. I can't honestly believe that they would want this type of call to be made.

and rpwall added:
Does NFHS Rule 4-19-5(c) mean an airborne shooter cannot commit an intentional or flagrant contact foul? i.e. does it say a foul by an airborne shooter takes precedence over an intentional foul?

Or, is it saying an airborne shooter can commit an intentional foul even though the ball may be dead?

I think the Fed has answered this. 4.19.6D Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

[walter]

Bob:

I see where you could read the play I put in as the release coming after the foul. I agree with you in that situation, the ball is dead immediately since continuous motion only applies when a foul is committed by an opponent of the player trying for goal (Rule 6-7, exceptions (3)). I was trying to describe a play where the actions happened simultaneously (sorry for the confusion). As for the original post (ball released and then the foul), I believe the basket counts since this is not a PC situation. Award the basket, penalize A1 appropriately, B shoots free throws and gets the ball. Agree/Disagree?

[rpwall]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Seems to me if you give an intentional foul, you have rewarded A1 immediately because the basket stands.

Sounds like someone ought to go to NF and suggest a rule clarification/change to state that an intentional or flagrant foul by the airborne shooter will result in basket being disallowed. I can't honestly believe that they would want this type of call to be made.

I agree. If the philosophy behind disallowing a basket when a common PC foul occurs is the airborne shooter gained an advantage by committing a PC foul and should not be rewarded, it seems very inconsistent to count the basket if he/she intentionally fouls during the shot.

If handled as an intentional foul but not PC, the best the offended team can do is come out even (i.e. Team A gets 2 or 3 points for the basket and Team B can only get 2 for the free throws).

I think I would call an intentional foul, "rule" that it came before the release, and disallow the basket.

[Glenn Lampman]

There is a couple of prior statements that are not kosher. A personal foul is NOT a common foul rather a common foul IS a personal foul. I have always been given the interpretation that you NEVER count the basket if there is a fould by the airborne shooter. The case book and funny book both show that senario. Calling an intentional is a gutsy call and may be the right call, I would cancel the bucket and administer the intentional per the book, 2 shots ball to B at the spot!! Picking apart the legality of the verbage ie common vs personal vs intentional vs dead ball vs etc, etc certainly muddies an already cloudy stream>