At camp this weekend, another camper and I were working with one of the evaluators (3-person). I was lead, camper-partner (CP) was trail, eval (E) was at C. I notice a competetive match-up just moving into my primary at the top of the key with A2 getting into position to receive a pass, and B2 behind her, and beat to the play. B2 grabs A1's jersey with both hands. A2 wasn't hampered much, and I was going to give it a pass, when E (at C) cracks the whistle and comes up with The Big X -- yup, an intentional foul. Coach B and crowd go bananas, of course.

Later, when we talked about it, E sounded very reasonable and her thinking made sense, but I would never have even thought about it. CP and I just looked at her and listened with a sort of blank stare, and nodded. Her rationale was that this was "not a basketball play," and the book talks about taking away a clear advantage (the actually wording is, "to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position"), and not making a play on the ball. These reasons made sense to me, and besides she's a very experienced ref around here, who works as high as some of the minor D1 conferences.

I'd be interested in y'all's opinions on this call.

Hard to say, I was not there. But there is a movement to call more of these types of calls. Maybe that was something that she saw on a tape and looked similar a play reviewed?

Peace

I think we all can agree it's definitely an intentional foul.

Have the 'nads/ONIONS to call it is another thing. :)

Edited as per rainmaker. :D



[Edited by BktBallRef on Jul 5th, 2004 at 07:13 PM]

Oh..., so many fouls are intentional! <font size = 1/2>[sigh!]</font>
We draw our own lines.
In your sitch, I have "Holding".
mick

Onions, Tony. Onions!

I had a play like this at camp a week ago and had the big X myself. Why? because the play fit the criteria for the big X. Clear path to the basket, obvious advantgeous position for the offensive player and 2 hands in the back. Foul wasn't hard or at the end of the game, but it was intentional.

Had the stones to call it, got hired into another league, partly because I called it.

stripes,
That's an easy Intentional, unlike Juulie's original sitch.
A eunuch coulda called yours. ;)
mick

Yeah, but the eunich wouldn't had sounded as good as stripes or you. :)

Juulie,
When I got to here I thought intentional.
For me grabbing an opponent's jersey is always an intentional foul. Of course, this thinking probably comes from my soccer reffing experience, where it is a yellow card.
I agree with those that said it is not a basketball play. This is not just an ordinary foul during the course of the game, therefore, I believe that it needs to be penalized more harshly.

But what does any of this thread have to do with the X on the floor in front of the scorer? :D

Nothing at all. That's a small x.

I see the point about calling it intentional. I just was surprised, and it got me thinking.

One thing I'm having trouble getting the hang of is when to get tough and when to be flexible. At the moment of the call, I thought she was really overreacting, but her explanation makes sense, and now I see that most of you (with one exception worthy of consideration) agreed with it. I expect it's just a matter of logging some more floor time, but I wish I could come up with a more intellectual rationale for what needs stern response and what doesn't.

The official must judge only the action not the intent.

Maybe in FIBA, Nick, but your statement is completely wrong for NFHS and NCAA rulesets. The whole idea of an intentional foul is that the official MUST judge the intent. Here's the definition straight from the NFHS rulebook:

Rule 4-19-3- <i>"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul 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 may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul shall also be ruled as intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent"</i>.

From a "Point of Emphasis" on intentional fouls in the 2000/2001 rulebook- <i>"An intentional foul has occurred when a team is obviously committing a foul, late in the game, to stop the clock and force the opponent into a throw-in or free-throw situation. Acts that must be deemed intentional include grabbing a player from behind, wrapping the arms around a player, grabing a player away from the ball, grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored, when coach/player says "watch, we're going to foul", excessive contact on a player attempting a shot--- and the last one that happens to be very germane to this thread- GRABBING/HOLDING A PLAYER BY THEIR JERSEY IN ORDER TO IMPEDE THEIR PROGRESS."</i>

JR...your advice....

DO you call the jersey grab (off the ball) when you see it or do you verbalize a warning and let the play continue?

Late in the game in an obvious need to foul situation do you call the "X" when you hear the coach calling for the foul and his/her player complies?

Rainmaker,

That's an interesting one. Personally, I would have called a simple "holding" foul unless the grabbing of the jersey had prevented an obvious easy basket by A1 or maybe if I felt I needed to clean the game up and other methods had failed. Maybe your partner had seen something in the game that made her think she needed to make a point.

I see so much physical play allowed at the college level that I'd much rather see pushing and shoving in the post (to me, <b> those </b> aren't basketball plays) chosen as ways to "make a point" by a college official rather than a jersey grab.

Z

1) Rob, I don't think that I'd ever warn a player for shirt-grabbing. I'd call that foul right away. Jmo, but if you let the clutching and grabbing go- on or off ball- you're gonna give yourself nothing but headaches later on in the game. You want to be as consistent as possible in your calls from beginning to end. That way the players and coaches always know what to expect and they're not getting any surprises. I think that the obvious problem with just issuing a warning one time is that now you're almost committed to giving every player on the floor a similar warning. That isn't gonna work when you get into an end-of-game situation, and the call HAS to be made. I think that the only real judgement involved with shirt-grabbing is whether you are gonna call it an intentional foul, or just a common foul- depending on the circumstances. My own advice, however, is to ignore my advice. Talk this particular play over with whoever your local supervisor/trainer/rules interpreter happens to be, and get some direction from him on how he wants the call made. The ideal is to have all officials in YOUR area try to consistently make the same call.

2)No, I wouldn't call an intentional foul on a defender if I didn't feel that the act itself was intentional. No matter what is said, if a defender is going for the ball- which is the criteria that I use, I usually won't call an intentional foul unless the defender really happens to rough up his opponent while he's committing that foul. I will mention to a coach (if I get a chance) that he should maybe find another way of telling his kids to foul. A lot of coaches now use code words to let their ballplayers know when they want them to foul. Again, this is another call that you should run by your rules interpreter though. His thinking may be different than mine, and he's the one that you have to keep happy- not me.

Stern responses would be non-basketball plays IMO. Grabbing the arm, shirt, leg, throwing elbows, baiting and taunting are all non bb plays and should be dealt with sternly. Set the guidelines in the beginning and you (hopefully) won't have to deal with that crap when you are in the last few mins.

My (2-person) mechanics have become comfortable enough that I am able to pay more attention now to the game, and I've started noticing how coaches call these plays. I listen for the play calls throughout the game, so I can anticipate the play (never the call, tho!). One guy, who I heard reviewing the "strategic foul" in a last-minute-time-out, would say, "..wait...wait...wait...CODE RED!!! CODE RED!!!" It worked fine for helping the players know what to do. Too bad it let both teams know.

This is an easier call to make if you're an evaluator at a camp working with some campers. You are going to have the confidence to make this call if you want to. I doubt that she would have the onions to make this call in a D-I game where she is the one being evaluated. It's a different perspective.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by devdog69

Quote:

This is an easier call to make if you're an evaluator at a camp working with some campers. You are going to have the confidence to make this call if you want to. I doubt that she would have the onions to make this call in a D-I game where she is the one being evaluated. It's a different perspective.

Amen to that devdog!

Z

Juulie - does this sound familiar?

"BANANAS, BANANAS, BANANAS" usually followed by TWEET and the dreaded X (depending on who's working the game).

Yea, but I never call it an X unless the foul itself warrants it. I know we're supposed to if there are verbal instructions to foul, but if the kid makes an honest attempt to go for the ball, or tries to set a screen, I'll call it just a foul.

The hardest ones are when the "strategic" foul isn't really hard enough to call, but you know that if you don't call it, the next one will be a tackle. That frustrates the heck out of me.

Uncomfortable memory
 

This happened to me a coupla years ago:
<p><I>Anticipating the end-o'-game "strategic foul", I whistled one of those *tweener* fouls and got a major look of discontent from the defensive player.
The contact coulda been enough, ... or not.
Took the player outa the game, I think.</p></I>

I quit doin' it.
Now, for me it has to be a foul.

When I think about it, it occurred to me that by calling the type of contact that I called, I was in fact buying the defense a little more time (even if they wanted the foul).

No more. If it happens to escalate, I can cross my forearms.

mick

Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

This seems to me like an important point. When they're just barely fouling, and not really getting the job done, and then the offensive coach starts screaming about not calling the fouls, I say, "Coach, do you want to stop the clock and give them the ball?" Then like you say, if they give the body-slam, it's capital X time.

Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

Most good coaches have no problem stopping the clock, that means they get to shoot FTs or will soon enough. As for letting the small "strategic" fouls go & waiting for the body slam, well, let's just say we disagree.

Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

You can say it if you want.
I won't.
mick

Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

You're not being very scrutable today, are you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

Am too.
mick

Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

One of our primary concerns should be safety. By not calling that soft strategic foul you are encouraging the body slam or the big swinging hit. I'd rather be safe then have it escalate.

AND, a different coordinator of officials might hate that call. We all know that you can't please all the coaches all the time, but I've learned that you can't please all the refs all the time either.

Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

You are not correct.
I do not encourage flagrant fouls in any of my sports.
I do not encourage any form of unsporting conduct in any of my sports.
I am resentful.
mick

Sooooo......could we say that you are a scrutam?

Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

No more. If it happens to escalate, I can cross my forearms.

Encourage, facilitate, abet take your pick.

Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

I'm not talking about any foul that would be called at any time in the game. I'm talking about the hack that's all air, or the push that misses. Perhaps a quarter-inch of contact for a thirtieth of a second. The offense is deliberately trying to keep the ball away from the foul, so the clock won't be stopped. Then the coach is yelling that he doesn't want the body-check. Well, make up your mind coach, if you want the average foul, slow down the ball a little and give the defense a chance. I had this situation several times this summer, and it got annoying.

Is that scrutable enough?

Sometimes the foul is so obviously intentional you have to lie down on your back, stick your legs up in the air and cross them.

I've seen Juulie do this. It really shows off her fishnets. :p

Just my two cents on this question. I have called this an intentional foul, and I have at other times called it a common foul. The time I called it intentional, the defender just stood there, not moving, not trying to play defense at all. Just stood like a statue, took two handfuls (handsful?) of offensive jersey and kept the kid from running his route.

The times when I have called it common, the defender was actively playing defense but got faked out of his jock (her sportsbra) and grabbed the offensive jersey out of instinct.

Just my experience.

JR, I would disagree with your statement that the "whole" idea of the intentional foul is for the official to judge intent. I think the underlined parts of the rule above show that intent is not a necessary component of an intentional foul.

Would you agree?

Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

While I personally usually do call the soft strategic contact (even if there is little advantage gained), it is simply untrue to say that not calling it "encourages" (or facilitates or abets) a hard intentional foul.

If a police officer fails to give a speeding ticket to a driver who is driving 55 in a 55 mph zone, is that officer condoning or encouraging speeding? All mick is saying is that he doesn't call soft contact if it's not really a foul, just like the cop who doesn't give the speeding ticket.

If the driver decides to press his luck and go 80, then he gets the big ticket. If the defender slams the kid, he gets the big X.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

Well, I'm talking about the soft strategic foul.

If B1 gets a hand on A1 with the ball call it.

If A can evade B then don't call it. But if you're saying team A is able to move the ball & avoid even the soft foul but coach A is screaming his fool head off for the foul then this guy is beyond help and is best ignored.

IMO.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

That happens to be MO, too. :)

Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

Huh?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

Must have put an extra ice cube in his diet coke tonight...just ignore him.

Yeah, I would agree for the underlined part, but I think that "intent" must still be judged in most cases. But, don't you still have to use your individual judgement in those other cases though to still classify the type of foul you're gonna call? As Nick said, the "action" itself is a foul. To say whether that "action" should be ruled an intentional foul or not still requires a judgement on the calling official's part, doesn't it?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

That's exactly the point. It is also legal to cause contact, as long as that contact does not give the defender an unfair advantage.

Now do you guys get it? All mick is saying is that if there's no foul (b/c the contact doesn't warrant a foul), then he doesn't blow the whistle. Just like the cop who doesn't give the ticket.

Many of us are saying that we call a foul even on minimal contact where there's no real advantage gained in end-of-game situations. I think Mick would say that's like giving a speeding ticket to a guy who hasn't done anything wrong. He's just saying to wait until the defender commits an actual foul before blowing the whistle.

I'll try to limit my use of analogies in the future. . .

JR,
Great job and thanks for digging that POE out. I was recently asked by a fellow official about this and could only remember reading it somewhere, but not where.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uncomfortable memory
 

Works for me.
Thanks, Chuck.