Did anyone watch the Mich St./Duke game at Cameron last night? There was one play in particular that I was confused why they called it an intentional foul.

1st half Duke gets rebound or steal(not sure which), outlets ball to Redick who has open layup and is slowing up trying to draw foul as well. Mich St. player hustles and catches him fouls himfrom behind but also swats the ball away. When I saw the replay it didn't seem like it warranted an intentional foul.

Just looking for anybody's opinion that may have saw the play and wondering if NCAA is enforcing intentional fouls differently than NFHS.

I saw that play also. I think it may be a call that they wanted back, but I'm not strong on NCAA rules. I didn't see anything intentional on the play. My only thought was that it ended up being a hard foul in a tough game and they might have been trying to calm the action down a bit. I did notice that an announcer had something intelligent to say. Vitale was talking about too many things being reviewable slowing the game down and I have to agree. In his words, human error is part of the game and players and coaches need to play through it.

Didn't see the game, but I know that the NCAA frowns on plays where the defender comes "thru" the shooter from behind to swat the ball away...so if that's what happened, then Intentional is the call...

Opinion
 

In my opinion there are not enough intentional fouls called. The intent is there but not the fortitude of the officials. I thought it was an appropriate call and also helped to assure that hard fouls would be addressed as the game progressed.

The MSU player's route to the ball was a little awkward and his arm came almost directly over Reddick's head to get to the ball. The replay showed that the play was much closer to clean and may not have justified the intentional call. In real time, however, the play looked much more violent, and from the angle we watched on television, it looked like an intentional.

Rick

Good call (IMO). I did see the entire game and this specific play as I watched the game with my usual "referee mentality".

As the play was properly described above, I agreed with the call simply because of the tomahawk motion used by B1 to attempt to swat at the ball from behind. This was a clearcut breakaway and although B1 made up a lot of ground to even have a chance at blocking the shot he was too late in getting there, did not have a LGP, and short of flat out grabbing A1 tried to intentionally foul to prevent the bucket. Yes, A1 did slow up at the last second in what appeared to be an attempt to draw contact but the ensuing contact was more than a blocked shot attempt by B1.

In real-time the play looked worse than the replay's.

In fact, this was a double whistle, too. The Lead official made the foul call but the Trail came in with the view of intentional; after an extremely brief chat with the Trail, the Lead went with the intentional foul call.

I only saw the play on the replay of it. I hadn't been paying attention until I heard them say it was intentional and then I wanted to see what had happened. I agree from the camera angle that would have been shown in the live shot, I can see where it would have looked much worse.

Also, I forgot to mention it but I think what got me more confused about was that I heard them say that they didn't call it intentional right away and from just seeing the replay I couldn't believe that they changed it to intentional.

Thanks for the replys.

As a Spartan alum, I can only say, incidental contact, clean block, no foul.;)

The lead actually came out with the intentional mechanic after about a 1.5 second conversation with the other calling official (I believe the T came in with the call also). Both did a great job of not making a call until they talked. I think they went to the monitor to get the number of the offender correct.

Go Green!

I thought all MSU students signed up for Free-Throw 101 to get the easy credit. Apparently not many of the starting five showed up for any of those classes.

Did anyone see the MICHIGAN blowout? Oh yeah, I forgot no one cares about the Wolverine BBall team...my bad! GO GREEN!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Robmoz
GO GREEN!

Gotta disagree there. As an Iowa State guy, I have to root against MSU in every game after the 2000 NCAA Tourney game. Neutral site my A@#! I'm not bitter and carrying a grudge am I?

Does anyone have the wording of the NCAA definition of intentional foul? In NFHS, the foul doesn't have to actually be "intentional" in intent. The defender could actually be playing the ball, but if excessive contact occurs, the official might call it intentional (preventative officiating - nip rough play in the bud).

Z

Rule 4-26, Art. 6. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal foul that, on the basis of an official’s observation of the act, is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player. Determination of whether a personal foul is intentional shall not be based on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
a. Fouling a player who is away from the ball and not directly involved with the play.
b. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
c. Holding or pushing an opponent in order to stop the game clock.
d. Pushing a player from behind to prevent a score.
e. Causing excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

A.R. 16. After a field goal by B1, Team A leads Team B, 61-60. A1 has the ball for a throw-in with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 holds the ball and B2 crosses the boundary line to hold A1. RULING:An intentional personal foul shall be charged to B2. The time remaining to play is not a factor. This circumstance shall not permit a warning.

Appendix III, Section 4. Intentional Personal Fouling Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:
a. Any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player is an intentional personal foul.
b. Running into the back of a player who has the ball, wrapping the arm(s) around a player and grabbing a player around the torso or legs are intentional personal fouls.
c. Grabbing a player’s arm or body while initially attempting to gain control by playing the ball directly is an intentional personal foul.
d. Grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an intentional personal foul.
e. Undue roughness used to stop the game clock is an intentional personal foul and, if severe, should be called a flagrant personal foul.
f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.
The intentional personal foul must be called within the spirit and intent of the intentional-foul rule.

GO WHITE!
I always liked that cheer.

Clean but violent block
 

I've been told that if a player blocks a shot from behind, that I should call a foul if it is a violent tomahawk style block, even if they get all ball.

Do you agree? During a rec game at my church I called this a foul on one our ministers sons. He claimed he got all ball and he did. But he was frustrated - they were losing - and I called the foul because he swung at the ball from behind.

I know it's a HTBT, but what say you? Did I make the right call?

Thanks!

A foul is excessive contact. No contact, no foul.

Re: Clean but violent block
 

No way. If the defender gets "all ball" and no contact is made, I don't care what he did to get "all ball" it is not a foul. This is a fundamental of basketball... a foul can only occur if contact is made (just like you can't travel while dribbling). Similarly, just because someone sets a screen and moves while setting it, if he/she does not make contact with the defender it is not a foul. Was it a moving screen... yes. Was it a foul... no because of the absence of contact.

Who ever is giving out that advice needs to stop giving advice. :D

Re: Re: Clean but violent block
 

Quote:

Originally posted by BBall_Junkie

BBJ what is a violent block if it is not a foul?

Here our training has touched on hard fouls and specifically the violent foul such as the push from behind or the tomahawk chop. Anytime a player "winds up" from his waist level to tomahawk the ball it should be called a foul. The examples used were:

• B1 tomahawk blocks the shot of A1 getting all ball but so violently that the ball is driven into the face of A1 as a result of the force of the otherwise clean block.
  
• As a preventative measure (read as deterrent) to avoid injury as most often the violent chop/push results in contact that is severe.

I really do not have a problem calling these fouls especially when put into the perspective of preventative officiating and avoiding escalation of actions that could bring things to a fever pitch. Have you ever had to deal with the retaliation or the follow-up violent foul by the opposite team, the so-called 'payback'? Have you ever worked a game where the violent foul no-call nearly causes a riot?

As officials we hate to go against our partners in a game but once in a while you have the proverbial "Oh Sh*t!" no-call where your partners pass or miss on a call so terribly (i.e. bodies on the floor due to violent contact) that someone has to save the crew with a whistle albeit late....that someone will be me.

Re: Re: Re: Clean but violent block
 

Your kidding right? First of all the other poster said a "violent tomahawk chop block (read: blocked shot), when he gets "all ball". If he gets all ball, by definition you can't have a foul. I don't care how it is done. \

Now, that being said he better get "all ball" with that style of blocked shot attempt. If there is any contact what-so-ever it is a foul.

I am all for preventive officiating and these are plays we need to stay on top of. If I have this play and it is a clean block, I stay right with those players and get in between them if I have to to settle things down... that is preventative as well and doesn't have to be calling a foul when one doesn't exist.

To answer your example of a person takes a big swipe at the ball and the ball goes into the other players face and it is all ball, no foul... that falls into the category of "stuff happens" for that player. Again, you may need to stay with those players for a while and keep your eye on them for a few trips up and down the court.

Curious but not trying to disrespect.

Have your assignors offered you any guidance on this particular topic and how they want it called?

Have you ever experienced this type of action?

Do you understand the logic behind the argument based on the safety issue or prevention management?

What if he got part of the hand
 

BBJ,

Suppose the player got part of the hand that was in contact with the ball? You'd call a foul? Why? Using your same logic its not a foul because by rule the hand is part of the ball. Are you going to disregard the rule because of the violent nature of the block? If so, why not call the foul when he got all ball?

It seems to me that if you call a foul when he got part of the hand and I call the foul even if he did not make contact with the hand, in both cases we are calling a foul contrary to the strict letter of the law.

Robmoz,

Have my assignors offered specific guidance on this type of play and how they want it called? Specifically... no. However, they want what constitutes a foul to be called and what doesn't constitute a foul to be passed on. No contact... No Foul

Yes, I have experienced this type of action and most of the time if it is all ball the person who got their stuff blocked usually has nothing to say about it. If so, I or my partners are right there to diffuse the situation (similar to D. Gray with McCants last night even though a foul was rightfully called).

To a certain extent I understand the logic. That is why I posted that if a player takes a big rip and does not want a foul to be called he better get 100% ball. If there is an contact I will put air in my whistle. But I still say you can't call a foul just because you think a foul should be called... it has to fit the definition.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the players safety is paramount and I will do everything I have to ensure that everyone goes home safely.

But.....
 

BBJ,

If you call a foul when the player made contact with the hand, this by definition, is not a foul. The hand is part of the ball.

Rwest,

The hand is part of the ball, therefore he get's all ball and no call is made. When I said he better get 100% ball, I meant according to the rules definition which includes the hand. Wrist, head , body get brushed, grazed etc. Whistle.



[Edited by BBall_Junkie on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 12:40 PM]

Here's an answer from an assignor that also takes has to take complaints:
1) I would never dream of telling any of my officials to ever call a foul when there was no physical contact present. There is simply no rules basis to do so.
2) If I received a complaint from a coach that one of my officials was calling personal fouls without physical contact, and the official acknowledged that was correct, I doubt very much that I would ever assign that official to any game higher than maybe Grade 6. I can tell you that our evaluators would make the same suggestion to me also.
3) Yes, I've had players get mad when they got cleanly facialed. I tell them honestly why no foul was called- i.e. it was a clean block. If their egos won't accept that,then you have a coaching problem instead of an officiating problem imo.
4) No, I certainly do not understand the logic behind calling something a foul that isn't. Safety and prevention management are non-factors completely, again imo.

Can't agree at all with you on this one, Rob. There's judgement involved as to how much physical contact that you're gonna allow out there on any call, but there's no judgement involved at all when there's no physical contact present at all. It's just not a foul.

Question...
 

A player violently tomahawks the hand which is on the ball so that it breaks his hand? Good no call? I think a person has to be very carefull about what you are advocating because I also think that the rules are designed to prevent injury. How about going for the ball but taking the legs out of a player? Intentional foul? Or common foul? He played the ball. I'm not so sure that I can agree with acts that are high risk for injury being protected by definition of a rule. I don't think that this is good for the game or the players and as stated, can easily escalate into more than any of us want to handle. These are the kinds of calls that lead to a disaster in the fourth quarter and severe injury.

Re: Question...
 

I'm not sure that everyone understands the purpose and intent of this particular rule. What the rulesmakers are telling us is that it's legal for a defender to contact the part of the opponent's hand that's in contact with the ball as long as that contact is incidental to an attempt to play the ball. Iow, this is a judgement call on the official's part. If we think that the "tomahawk" and subsequent contact on the hand on the ball was part of a legitimate block attempt, then by rule it's not a foul. If you feel that the "tomahawk" wasn't a legitimate try to make a block but was only done to prevent a layup, then if there was contact on the hand on the ball, you could call a foul.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 01:14 PM]

Contact can be severe and not be a foul. The amount of contact on a player has nothing to do with calling fouls. That is not me talking. That is the rulebook talking.

In my game on Tuesday a small guard attempted to drive the lane and made a jump stop and went head on with the Center, who was 6'3" and about 230 pounds. The guard bounced completely off the center and lost the ball and fell to the floor. There was a lot of contact, but what foul could I call in this case? Well actually nothing. The defender stood completely still. He did not move when contact took place. Could the guard have gotten hurt? Of course he could have, but you cannot just call a foul on the defender when they are playing within the rules.

Peace

Re: Re: Question...
 

So, in other words JR, you are suggesting that we can officiate outside the black letter of the law if we believe the intent of the rule has been violated. As you said, that's up to the referee's judgement. I don't believe it is a stretch to say that a violent block from behind violates the intent of the rule, even if it does not violate the strict letter of the law.

I hear ya JR, I guess it rests with the assignor or evaluator in the end.

I have had an evaluator tell me that a severe tomahawk motion should be judged as a reckless act and that calling a foul is the lesser of two evils. His premise was that although it may be a lose-lose situation if it came down to trying to prevent any potential for escalation the err is on the side of safety.

Having said that, I will toe the company line when called to do so. Each conference I work in has certain philosophical differences compared to others; some based on historical events (i.e previous fights), or skill levels of players (i.e. multiple D1 potential players), or experience of officials (i.e. rooks vs. vets).

My point being that the boss has the final word, I accept it or I go work somewhere else.

I agree but this is different, IMO
 

Rut,

I agree with you on the above scenario. You can't call a foul on someone just because they are bigger. A smaller player who runs into a larger player is going to fall to the ground. The crowd may want a foul, but they aren't wearing the stripes. We don't call fouls based on their reaction.

However, there is a precedence for using the violent nature of contact to make a determination. If a player commits a violent foul while playing the ball, we can call an intentional foul even though they clearly were playing the ball. I know this is different, but I believe a violent block from behind, even though it got all ball or the hand on the ball, violates the spirit of the rule if not the letter. Its a judgement call.

Re: Re: Re: Question...
 

Nope, I'm suggesting that you read R10-6-1. That tells you what the FED's take on contact is. The black letter of the law says that a defender contacting an opponent's hand while it is on the ball may or may not be a foul. Casebook play 4-19-3SitB gives you good direction too on a legal block followed by contact.

I am saying that a violent block on the ball that is not accompanied by physical contact of any kind is NOT a foul, and it NEVER was the purpose and intent of any rule to allow a personal foul to ever be called without any actual physical contact being present. Iow, your "stretch" has no basis under any existing rule or practise that I know of.

I know this is different, but I believe a violent block from behind, even though it got all ball or the hand on the ball, violates the spirit of the rule if not the letter. Its a judgement call.

[/B][/QUOTE]Lah me.

The "spirit of the rules" are laid out in the "Basketball Rules Fundamentals" on p74 of the rule book. Please see <font color = red>Fundamental</font> #10 - "Personal fouls ALWAYS INVOLVE ILLEGAL CONTACT and occur during a live ball, except a common foul by or on an airborne shooter". Please note that the exception for the airborne shooter is because contact at that time may be after the ball became dead, not because illegal contact wasn't involved.

Please note again, that's a <font color = red>Basketball Rules Fundamental</font>!

Preach it, JR...preach it!!

Very well said JR and what I have been advocating for several posts here. I stated the fundamental but without my rulebook I couldn't give the exact number of the fundamental. Thanks. :D

We can't just start calling fouls, because we think it should be called a foul due to how the play appeared.

Preach it, JR...preach it!! [/B][/QUOTE]Well, Rock, I just had this picture kinda flash through my head(nothing to stop it):

I get to listen to all the complaints when they initially come in. I can just see me sitting there at home one night, all cosy and comfy, nice and quiet because the wife is out, fire burning, feet up, dogs dozing beside me, watching that copy of <i>Rainmaker Does Portland</i> that you sent me, and all of a sudden the phone rings. I answer it and I get one of those coach/lifers on the other end- you know the kind- crusty ol' goof that never met an official yet that he really liked or trusted. After he's through spitting a gallon or two at me through the earpiece, he finally comes out with <i>"Do you know what one of your guys did tonight? We're up 1 with 2 seconds left. My guy makes a great block on a breakaway. All ball all the way. There's a foul called on my guy. I asked him whatinthehell was that foul for? And do you know what he said? DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE SAID? He told me that there wasn't any physical contact, but he tomahawked the ball and he violated the spirit of the rule. HE TOMAHAWKED THE BALL!! Now tell me, JR, whatinthehell do you have to say to that?"</i>

To which I reply <i>"homina, homina,homina....."</i> :D

Well, Rock, I just had this picture kinda flash through my head(nothing to stop it):

I get to listen to all the complaints when they initially come in. I can just see me sitting there at home one night, all cosy and comfy, nice and quiet because the wife is out, fire burning, feet up, dogs dozing beside me, watching that copy of <i>Rainmaker Does Portland</i> that you sent me, and all of a sudden the phone rings. I answer it and I get one of those coach/lifers on the other end- you know the kind- crusty ol' goof that never met an official yet that he really liked or trusted. After he's through spitting a gallon or two at me through the earpiece, he finally comes out with <i>"Do you know what one of your guys did tonight? We're up 1 with 2 seconds left. My guy makes a great block on a breakaway. All ball all the way. There's a foul called on my guy. I asked him whatinthehell was that foul for? And do you know what he said? DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE SAID? He told me that there wasn't any physical contact, but he tomahawked the ball and he violated the spirit of the rule. HE TOMAHAWKED THE BALL!! Now tell me, JR, whatinthehell do you have to say to that?"</i>

To which I reply <i>"homina, homina,homina....."</i> :D

[/B][/QUOTE]

Nice story.

Can you tell us more about the video?

Nice story.

Can you tell us more about the video? [/B][/QUOTE]

DJ, if you give out any more copies of that thing, I'm going to be back at Pat's camp next year and you'll have to eval ALL my games instead of just one.

PS I finally heard the news that Karl got the rock AND the wallet for real. Of course, I'm pleased ... or I will be, after the envy wears off.

DJ, if you give out any more copies of that thing, I'm going to be back at Pat's camp next year and you'll have to eval ALL my games instead of just one.

[/B][/QUOTE]You didn't think that I was kidding now, did ya Dan? Rocky said that it was some kind of training video. He was right. I learned a whole bunch of things.

So now you have a bad case of TMI?

ROTFLMHO! :D