Hey I need some help finding the section that says that a coach cannot tell their players to foul other wise it is an intentional foul (NF rule book)...I don't normally call this one but the coach was riding me all night so I obliged him with this call.

I looked quickly in a couple of places where I thought it might be and I don't see a case that covers the situation. I'm sure it's not in the rules. My guesss is that this is not a hard-and-fast rule, but more of an edict passed down to local interpreters.

You will not find a rule that specifically states that when a coach yells to one of his players, in a manner for the officials to hear, that he wants them to foul an opponent that this is an intentional foul. But the fact remains that if the player immediately fouls an opponent it should be called an intentional foul because the contact fits the definition of an intentioinal foul.

Not there
 

Don't believe you'll find anything about a coach can't tell his players to foul.

As you seem to understand the intentional foul is generally not called in this situation if the play can be construed as a typical defensive act. The grab from behind by a beaten defensive player or a hold that really is a grab and stop of the offensive dribbler's motion - Yes, intentional foul, and penalize appropriately with two and the ball (even if the shot goes).

I think the specific wording is in the Points of Emphasis for 2001-2002. Mine got stolen along with my whole kit bag about a year ago, so I can't investigate, but I'm pretty sure that's where the specific situation is discussed.

Forgot to mention that there are a couple of savvy coaches around here who choose a play name in line with their other play names, and use it to mean, "Okay girls, it's time to foul." By not saying the word "foul" they help us refs, since we aren't in the position of deciding whether to call the foul intentional. The most famous one around here is "Bananas! Bananas!"

Its your call
 

Just because a coach yells to foul that doesn't make it intentional.

Sure everyone in the gym knows they are fouling on purpose, but also as we know they are "fouling with a purpose."

Anyone who watched Dean Smith and his great teams at NC learned the value of the fouls in the last few moments.

How many games did NC win or nearly win after being down by a huge margin,but simply taking advantage of the other teams inability to shoot a free throw.

Thanks
DAvid

Secret code
 

We used "Get the ball." That was it, you want a foul, "Freddy, GET THE BALL."

Here's a 'foull 'em' story for the ages . . .
 

D2 boys final, the lesser team is down 5 with 30 seconds to go, the other team has the ball . . . and the coach (& staff) are doing nothing. The guy has been the coach for 30 years, rolling out the ball. He was a great local player . . .

So the crowd starts chanting "Foul!", and they do.

Does that meet the definition of 'Intentional Foul?'

Some things are best not brought to court.

I don't keep a library of old rulebooks - I carry one around for a year or two then junk it for the latest version. But I agree with juulie - this was specifically mentioned in a POE two years ago. Yell foul, player fouls, it's an intentional. Whether or not you want to follow this is up to you - it's not a POE this year!

As for the crowd, they are not participants and their calls for a foul accompanied by a subsequent foul should be judged on its own merits.

No, I'm not turning into an archivist, a la MTD, but I do happen to have the 2000-2001 rulebook, and intentional fouls are in the POEs. I won't type out the whole thing, but part of the paragraph states the following.
So notice that this doesn't necessarily include a coach telling his player to foul. It specifically addresses the situation where the coach tells the official that they're going to foul to stop the clock.

I don't know if that makes a difference to the current discussion, but it's kind of interesting.

POE or not, you aren't going to get to far with your assignors if you start calling this intentional. Judge the act, we all know they are going to foul. If it looks like they are just playing the ball call it as such, if they are fouling someone away from the ball call it intentional, otherwise you give the defense an unfair advantage by letting them choose who they are sending to the line. Judge the foul by its merits.

Thanks for doing my research for me Chuck, but I believe that if the Coach B yells to his players for them to foul and B1 immediately fouls A1, that foul is intentional.

True story: Two years ago, Team B is down by four points with less that a minute to play. Team B is pressing and I am Trail table side. Coach yells to B1 (who is guarding A1, who is dribbling the ball) to foul A1. B1 immediately hacks A1 across the arm. Intentional personal foul on B1. Almost had a technical on Coach B after that, but the foul fit the definition of an intentional foul.

Our state interpreter mentioned this specifically at the state meeting this season. He said that yelling FOUL has no bearing on the call. An intentional foul is intentional because of the nature of the foul, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Just because a player makes a more aggressive play on a ball with the intention of either (1) coming up with the ball or (2) fouling 100% of the times he doesn't get the ball doesn't make case (2) an intentional foul.

Rich

Why is it intentional? It would seem to me that a hack across the arm was a play on the basketball and, failing that, a common foul. If this is an intentional foul earlier in the game without the coach yelling at the player, fine, but the only thing I hear from the coach is when he's asking for a time out. I take all contact at face value.

Rich

I think its common sense
 

I agree with Rich.

If they are playing the ball I don't care if the whole team is yelling foul him, foul him, he's doing it within in the guidelines of the rules.

I think to simply call everything intentional takes away the intent of the rulesmakers.

Now, if he simply pushes the player, or grabs someone without the ball or something, that's different.

That would be intentional.

If he fouls the guys in the first quarter and its not intentional, then its not intentional in the fourth quarter with two minutes to play. What makes a difference??

Thanks
David

If you play the ball, it is a personal foul; if you play the man then it becomes an intentional foul.

to: Dave and Rich

Chuck gave us the POE from 2000-01, and it is quite clear. When Coach B tells his player to foul an opponent, and B1 then fouls A1, B1's foul is an intentional foul. Even without the 2000-01 POE, logic dictates that that B1's foul is intentional because it fits the definition of an intentional foul.

I do not have my rule books in front of me but under NFHS, NCAA, and FIBA rules, such contact by B1 has to be an intentional foul. How could B1's contact be anything other that an intentional foul. Not to charge B1 with an intentional foul would be penalizing A1 and Team A because A1 (depending upon the team foul totals) might not get his two free throws to which he is entitled and Team A would not get possession of the ball for a throw-in to which it is entitled.

Just reread my post of Nov. 10th. I actually had the same situation that we have been discussing. The fact the B1 hacked A1 on the arm is of no consequence. Coach B told him to foul an opponent and B1 immediately made illegal contact with A1 would had control of the ball.

Even with a coach yelling "foul", an official still needs to make a determination whether the fouling players was making a legitimate play on the ball. Even if the foul occurs right after the coach calls for it, the player might still be trying to steal the ball or bat it away. Consider the action in light of the coach's directions. When a coach yells foul, though, you often end up with grabs or bumps that aren't attempts at the ball.

I agree that it was a point of emphasis that coaches yelling FOUL made it intentional. I called it that way all last season without any controversy. I think the idea behind the emphasis was to take coaches out of determining games and having players decided who wins and loses. I'm not saying I totally agree with it, but it was a point of emphasis so that's the way I call it.

I see your point but ...
 

I pullled my old book and it states that this is a continuation from previous years. As we know FED is bad about putting something in and leaving it for years with no changes.

Here is what they wrote:

<i> Intentional fouls have remained a point of emphasis for the 2000-2001 season. The goal of reducing the number of intentional fouls has not occurred, primarily because the fouls are not being penalized as "intentional"</i>

It seems to me they were trying to <b>reduce the number of intentional fouls (or hard flagrant fouls)</b> by encouraging us as officials to call an intentional foul a foul.

They follow that with seven acts that should be deemed intentional.

All of them are obvious attempts and most would be called flagrant fouls at anytime in the game.

The one that covers what our thread about is is when the coach states "hey ref watch, we going to foul."

That's what coaches used to teach. In fact many thought if they told the ref they were going to foul that he would call it quicker so it would stop the clock faster.

It seems to me that is what FED was trying to address.

Not when the coach is simply coaching his team and with 30 seconds to go he yells "come on John foul him."

We see it all levels of ball and IMO that is good coaching.
Make them beat you at the FT line.

I looked in the next three years and it is not in the book so either we started calling it better or FED finally decided to take it out. (g)

Thanks
David

Below is the NFHS definition of an intentional foul:

NFHS R4-S19-A3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical four designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. IT MAY OR NOT BE PREMEDITATED and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the all a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


When Coach B tells B1 to foul an opponent and B1 immediately fouls A1, that foul is premeditated. And a premeditated foul is an intentional foul.

Somebody failed logic it seems. I read the post -- saying an intentional foul may or may not be premeditated doesn't mean that something premeditated is an intentional foul.

All fouls are either premeditated or not premeditated -- neither case necessarily implies anything. However your post does say that it must be a foul away from the ball or a foul that causes excessive contact. I can yell FOUL FOUL FOUL all I want, but if the player makes a legitimate play on the ball, it is not an intentional foul. To call so would be over-officious and would be inserting your own beliefs into the game rather than calling the game by the spirit of the intentional foul rule.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Nov 11th, 2003 at 10:34 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[B]Below is the NFHS definition of an intentional foul:

NFHS R4-S19-A3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical four designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. IT MAY OR NOT BE PREMEDITATED and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the all a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


Rich,
When a coach is yelling "FOUL" he or she obviously wants to stop or keep the clock from starting to neutralize an opponents's obvious adavantageous position. That's how I took the point of emphasis and how I'll continue to call it according to the rulesbook. I can't say I necessarily agree with the rule because it is good game management by the coach, but the way the rule reads currently, if they yell foul, it is intentional.

Bingo. When you see a player foul while making a legitimate attempt at the ball, who are you to guess that the player was trying to foul as opposed to seeing an opportunity to steal the ball or bat it away? The player might not have even heard the coach.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Junker
[B]Smart coaches have taken to yelling a code word for "foul 'em!", like "red!" or some such. So when coach A - down by 1 with 15 seconds left - yells "red!" and A1 immediately fouls B1 everyone on the floor realizes (or should realize) what just happened.

You got an intentional in this case?

Let's all remember that the most important job we have on the court is to enforce the SPIRIT of the rules, not the letter of the law. I know what the book and POE says, but a great official will never call it like that. Call it on its merits.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[B]Below is the NFHS definition of an intentional foul:

NFHS R4-S19-A3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical four designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. IT MAY OR NOT BE PREMEDITATED and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the all a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.


To me the spirit of the rule is to take coaches out of the game. The rule reads that we don't want deliberate fouls to stop the clock. The issue isn't a legitimate play on the ball, it the intent of the foul. In enforcing this rule, I can overlook statements that might tell teams to foul (code words) but if I hear foul, it's intentional. I've made this call a few times and they were obvious and not disputed. Maybe this rule needs to be reworded for next year. Also, I wasn't on the board early last year. Was there a discussion on this when it became a point of emphasis?

To me, it is simply the action in front of me that determines the call. If that guard has made 5 previous attempts to steal the ball (some maybe sucessful, some maybe fouls), I'm calling the same basic action with 30 seconds left the same as I did in Q1,Q1 and Q3. It doesn't matter if the coach happened to yell foul. Do we really think the kids always hear and listen to the coach?

It's based only on what the player does, not what he's told to do.

It may be, however, that the coach yelling "foul" causes us to look closely at the contact to see if it was a play for the ball or just to stop the clock.

I teach my players to always go for the ball when fouling at the end of the game. That prevents the intentional call. I also tell them to be sure to end up with the ball. Then we either have a no-call or a foul. If you don't go for the ball and don't get enough player when going for a quick foul, you could have a no-call and no turnover, and the clock keeps running.

I also avoid yelling for fouls. If I yell foul and you go for the ball, we probably get a foul. So not yelling foul and always going for ball gets us a few steals with no foul called, and other times gets us the foul we were looking for, almost never intentional.

--reread what you wrote. This does not follow logically.

And just because the coach wants player to do something doens't mean player will. Or planned to. But your point is taken. In your scenario I am more much more likely to call Intentional and will be looking for it--But if the contact doesn't warrant it what are you going to do? When I used to coach I taught the same as Hawks coach wrote. When you need to foul to stop the clock go for the ball hard. What are you going to do if the player ends up stealling the ball without contact/or just incidental contact. Coach asked for a foul--are you still going to give it to him?