Intentional Foul at End of Game

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Despite Jurassic's indignation, this is essentially true. If you make a play at the ball, then the foul will be called common; even when everyone knows it was done to stop the clock.

If you grab the player, or push (especially from behind), without even trying for the ball, then it's much more likely to be intentional.

I'm not sure why that particular comment provoked JR's ire.

It just ain't that damn simple, Chuck. It depends on what other acts are involved during that "token swipe at the ball". If the defender puts a dribbler in the 3rd. row while making a "token swipe at the ball", then are you trying to tell me that's a "non-intentional foul"? If the defender grabs a handful of shirt and spins the dribbler while making a "token swipe at the ball", then is that always a "non-intentional foul" also?

Btw, care to comment on some of his other criteria? How about the one where trying to "hurt/punish" a player is an intentional foul?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

It just ain't that damn simple, Chuck. It depends on what other acts are involved during that "token swipe at the ball". If the defender puts a dribbler in the 3rd. row while making a "token swipe at the ball", then are you trying to tell me that's a "non-intentional foul"? If the defender grabs a handful of shirt and spins the dribbler while making a "token swipe at the ball", then is that always a "non-intentional foul" also?

Btw, care to comment on some of his other criteria? How about the one where trying to "hurt/punish" a player is an intentional foul?

See, Regas? He snarls at everyone. Don't take it personally.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by regas14
[/B]

Take the opportunity to offer some guidance not a belittling lecture

Based on what you're telling me in this post, you would call an intentional foul anytime a foul is committed at the end of the game by the trailing team if their intent is to commit a foul to stop the clock. In all my years around basketball I have never seen an official take that stance in reality.

[/B][/QUOTE]Here's some guidance for you:

READ THE RULEBOOK; SPECIFICALLY READ RULE 4-19-3

If you do read Rule 4-19-3, you will find that it says "An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting". Please note that the official definition in the rulebook completely contradicts what you wrote above.

I sureashell also NEVER said that I would always call an intentional foul under those circumstances. If you really want to know, I would penalize the actual act, not some misplaced criteria bearing absolutely no relation to that act.

Take my guidance fwiw.

PS- It might be a good idea to read the definition of a flagrant foul also. You seem to have a problem differentiating those from intentional fouls, as per your previous post.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

See, Regas? He snarls at everyone. Don't take it personally.

Juulie, that isn't a snarl. That's an explanation/question. Big difference. You may be mistaking "disagreement" with "curmudgonous".

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
If the defender puts a dribbler in the 3rd. row while making a "token swipe at the ball", then are you trying to tell me that's a "non-intentional foul"?

Obviously not. But I thought it was also obviously not the type of play we're talking about. We're talking about the foul at the end of the game, the sole purpose of which is to stop the clock.

If the question is whether there can be an intentional foul even while playing the ball, the answer is obviously "yes". But in a play where a kid is running around trying to stop the clock and slaps somebody on the arm, playing the ball is the main consideration in whether it's ruled an intentional or not.

care to comment on some of his other criteria? How about the one where trying to "hurt/punish" a player is an intentional foul?

Nah, you covered it.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Juulie, that isn't a snarl. That's an explanation/question. Big difference. You may be mistaking "disagreement" with "curmudgonous".

Okay, fine. I'm going to go over there in my cave and get back in touch with my inner male. See if he can tell me the difference between snarl and disagreement. Maybe take a nap or something.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Obviously not. But I thought it was also obviously not the type of play we're talking about.

That was my point. You can't use a "one-size- fits-all" criteria to define your "run of the mill" and "token swipe" calls. Every call is different. If you could, it would sure make our job out there a helluva lot easier. There's just too many variables involved to make the very specific statements that Regis made- especially when those statements were made without a basic understanding of the actual rule and the reason for it's implementation.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I expect Regas will be starting as we all did at the MS and lower HS level. Few, if any, games taped, and NONE posted on the web. He needs words because that's all he's gonna get for a few years. Your advice to shut up and listen would be more helpful if there were accompanied by some words of description telling what is and what isn't an intentional foul.

Just for the record I didn't tell him to shut up and listen. I was kidding and said so at the time. As far as giving him some words, I think everyone has done a pretty good job of giving him some descriptions of what to look for and that is why I didn't add anything. I will say that even after you've done HS varsity a MS game can be more of a blast than a freshman or JV game.
I will offer these words: You can read all you want to about what an intentional foul should or shouldn't be during the whole game and at the end of a game. The best teacher will be calling or not calling one that you should or shouldn't and wanting to crawl in a hole. I have learned many lessons on the court by messing them up

[regas14]

This has become quite a firestorm. Makes it interesting. I'm really not trying to piss anyone off and I understand that these are a case by cases basis, I thought the whole point of this thread was to have people share their method of discernment between an intentional and non-intentional foul. I will humbly listen to those people who are willing to offer their own experience and guidance - it's a little more difficult to humbly accept insults. Clearly you need only watch a few close games to realize that the letter of the rule which JR has quoted ( "An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting") is not always enforced otherwise everyone of those fouls at the end of the game would be intentional fouls. That's what we're talking about here is how do officials decide which call to make in that specific circumstance.

Jurassic - my attempt to better understand the practical nature of this situation has not been improved based on your own contradictions:

IN YOUR FIRST RESPONSE TO ME YOU SAID:

"Note the part of R4-19-3 that says the act may or may NOT be premeditated and that it ISN'T based the severity of the contact"

AND YOU ALSO POINT OUT THIS FACT:

(2)Trying to hurt/punish an opponent is a FLAGRANT foul. Completely different animal, and defined as such in the rules.

THEN YOU RESPOND TO CHUCK WITH THIS:

"If the defender puts a dribbler in the 3rd. row while making a "token swipe at the ball", then are you trying to tell me that's a "non-intentional foul"?"

WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON APPROACHING THE POINT OF USING FLAGRANT FOUL AND INTENTIONAL FOUL IN INAPPROPRIATE CONTEXT.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THESE STATEMENTS ARE A CONTRIDICTION INDICATING THAT IN YOUR MIND SEVERITY IS A CONSIDERATION.

*****************

ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS YOU POINT OUT THAT THE RULE STATES:

"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting"

WHICH YOU CLAIM CONTRADICTS MY SAYING:

"Based on what you're telling me in this post, you would call an intentional foul anytime a foul is committed at the end of the game by the trailing team if their intent is to commit a foul to stop the clock."

TO WHICH YOU RESPOND WITH:

"I sureashell also NEVER said that I would always call an intentional foul under those circumstances."

******************

Jurassic,

You've been a ref for 45 years so I know you know what you're talking about. I'm not debating that you're a good ref. I really would just like the benefit of your experience as opposed to the benefit of you reading the rule book to me. My only point in all of this is that I nearly positive you've had fouls made at the end of the game to stop the clock that you have not called as intentional (when the act was a foul committed for the purpose of stopping the clock) and I'm almost sure that there have been some that you have called intentional. The rule which defines intentional foul is of some help however there is some judgement applied to it. As a rookie, I'm trying to visualize situations before I'm in them so that I can do my best to be prepared to make the appropriate call. I'm using the case book and the rule book in my preparations, but even looking at the statements I've quoted above, this is a gray area and I'd appreciate your thought process, first and foremost in which I'm sure is your thorough knowledge of what the rule states. You like to point out the section of the rulebook, but in black-and-white, essentially mandates that these fouls we're talking about at the end of the game committed for the purpose of stopping the clock be called intentional every time. You're experience is what gives you the judgement to determine when to stick by the letter of the law and when to allow these fouls to be deemed unintentional. My comments are not meant to criticize referees but more to try and identify the gray area so I can better understand its shades and applications when I'm on the floor.

A lot of the others on here have seen it clear to offer their criteria (grabbing the jersey, fouls on the back, etc.). Even you point out the POE criteria but it doesn't seem to me that those superscede the letter of the rule stating that a foul made to stop the clock is an intentional foul. How do you decide when not to call it as such?

I'm sorry for pissing everyone off. I'm really not that argumentative. This is an issue that's frustrated me as a player and a fan before ever becoming involved with officiating. I think my understanding is a bit better than when the discussion started - thanks to those who offered sincere perspective on the topic.

[Camron Rust]

regas, you're asking good questions. Jurassic just got out of bed on the wrong side this decade.

The statements Jurassic makes are not really inconcsistent. They are seperate and independant aspects of an intentional foul.
An intentional foul can be had in a few ways:

1. A foul that is designed to stop the clock
   
2. A foul that takes away an opponents obvious advantage
   
3. Excessive contact
   

In #1, it is premeditated but may or may not be severe.

In #2, it may or may not be premeditated and may or may not involve excessive contact but would be an intentional foul.

In #3, the contact is excessive but without intent to injure and not so overboard that it would be fagrant. This is provided as a middle ground between a common foul and a flagrant.

When the player makes a play for the ball and fouls with minor contact, we'd have to read his mind to know if it is deliberate or not...designed to stop the clock. The benefit of the doubt is given to the defender if it is possible that it was a play on the ball that happened to result in a foul. If the same play had occured in the 2nd quarter, would it have been an intentional...never. When the same thing happens with excessive contact, we no longer have to read their mind...it's covered under a different part of the rule. If they just shove a player in the back, again, it's obvious.

In the end, what you usually see on the floor is some officials just don't have the guts to call it for what it is. In some game situations, it may be acceptable to overlook the intential nature of a foul that would normally be an intential foul.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jun 29th, 2005 at 03:47 PM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by regas14
Jurassic - my attempt to better understand the practical nature of this situation has not been improved based on your own contradictions:

IN YOUR FIRST RESPONSE TO ME YOU SAID:

"Note the part of R4-19-3 that says the act may or may NOT be premeditated and that it ISN'T based the severity of the contact"

AND YOU ALSO POINT OUT THIS FACT:

(2)Trying to hurt/punish an opponent is a FLAGRANT foul. Completely different animal, and defined as such in the rules.

THEN YOU RESPOND TO CHUCK WITH THIS:

"If the defender puts a dribbler in the 3rd. row while making a "token swipe at the ball", then are you trying to tell me that's a "non-intentional foul"?"

Regas, you're going to be pretty frustrated if you start looking for contradictions in JR's posts. There is no contradiction among the three quotes you list above. The only thing that may make you think there are contradictions is your lack of familiarity with the basic definitions in the rules. This is not an insult or a put-down, nor am I pissed off. But to understand everything that JR has said above, you need to read and understand the definitions of different types of fouls in 4-19. Until you know the definitions of "intentional foul" and "flagrant foul", it doesn't do you much good to try to pick apart JR's posts.

An intentional foul does NOT have to be premeditated. It does NOT require excessive to be called. If there is excessive force, but no premeditation, then the foul should be intentional. (This is the case of stopping the clock by putting the kid into the 3rd row, or of what Hubie Brown calls "the hard foul".) If there is premeditation, but not excessive force, then it could still be intentional. (This is the case of a bear hug, when there is no attempt to play the ball.) In no situation should an intentional foul be called if there is intent to injure or harm the opponent.

Why?

Because if there is intent to injure, that's a flagrant foul. It's a different type of foul, separate from intentionals.

Does that help to sort out the putative contradictions?

WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON APPROACHING THE POINT OF USING FLAGRANT FOUL AND INTENTIONAL FOUL IN INAPPROPRIATE CONTEXT.

You may not be the only one, but I promise you that JR is not using them in an inappropriate context.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN YOUR MIND SEVERITY IS A CONSIDERATION.

An intentional foul may be called if there is excessive contact, even while playing the ball. So sometimes, severity is a consideration in whether or not an intentional is called. If a kid blocks a lay-up but then follows thru by taking the shooter to the floor, that's an intentional foul, even tho he was playing the ball.

ON A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS YOU POINT OUT THAT THE RULE STATES:

"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting"

WHICH YOU CLAIM CONTRADICTS MY SAYING:

"Based on what you're telling me in this post, you would call an intentional foul anytime a foul is committed at the end of the game by the trailing team if their intent is to commit a foul to stop the clock."

TO WHICH YOU RESPOND WITH:

"I sureashell also NEVER said that I would always call an intentional foul under those circumstances."

Look, the bottom line is that calling an intentional foul in that end-of-game situation is like getting a guilty verdict. You want to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. If the kid plays the ball -- and doesn't do anything else excessive (like grabbing a jersey, putting a kid in the 3rd row, knock down the ballhandler from behind) -- then that's reasonable doubt. Even tho everybody knows that stopping the clock benefits the defense, if he plays the ball, then we give the defender the benefit of the doubt.

I hope that helps a little. And I hope I posted before JR read your post about his "contradictions".

[26 Year Gap]

I think that the comment about many not having the gonads to call intentional fouls is pretty well on the mark. [Those are my words, not yours.] I have called 3 of them in 2 years. I probably should have called more. One was a defender pushing an offensive player into the backcourt. She ran into the player and made no attempt for the ball. One was not near the end of the game. I was trail in a 3 man and a kid gave another kid a two handed push in the back away from the play. The kid that was pushed fell to the floor. It was not a violent push--the player was a bull in a china closet and obviously thought the quickest route between 2 points was a straight line. I think he had 4 fouls in about 8 minutes of playing time. And the 3rd was a kid bear hugging another kid from behind.

[drinkeii]

I have the same concern - people around here seem to ignore the "act designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting", or pushes from behind, as intentional, and just call them common. In many cases, there is no attempt for the ball, and I just get blank stares when I'm coaching and I ask for an intentional. And yes, i expect it to be called on my players the same way at the other end - I tell them to try to get the ball, not just foul if they're trying to get in the bonus.

This leads back to a general thread running through most of my posts - a large number of officials choose to ignore the rules as they are written, in favor of doing what is commonly accepted or what they feel is right. As I've said a number of times, it's not "me-sketball", it's "Basketball", and the rules are defined by a committee, interpreted by interpreters, and expected to be enforced by the officials. I wonder what the game would be like if we actually enforced the rules as written. When a rule gets changed because refs refuse to enforce it (the change from swinging elbows T to violation), something is wrong. Maybe the majority should rule in this case, but the rules committee put it in there in the first place... who are we to just up and choose not to enforce it. (BTW, I never had the opportunity to enforce that one - never came up in the games I officiated)

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by drinkeii

This leads back to a general thread running through most of my posts - a large number of officials choose to ignore the rules as they are written, in favor of doing what is commonly accepted or what they feel is right. As I've said a number of times, it's not "me-sketball", it's "Basketball", and the rules are defined by a committee, interpreted by interpreters, and expected to be enforced by the officials. I wonder what the game would be like if we actually enforced the rules as written.

It would be a miserable experience and the game would probably join the ranks of curling in popularity.

[drinkeii]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

It would be a miserable experience and the game would probably join the ranks of curling in popularity.

You honestly feel this way? Then I guess we should just throw out the rule book. I mean, otherwise, how can it be fair to go from one official to the next, having one choose which rules they like, and which ones they don't, and enforcing them however they want? Associations try to control this somewhat by dictating how they want things enforced - but I do find it funny that most of what I say fits exactly with our rules interpreter from our chapter, but many officials still ignore some of the things he says. And he is elected every couple of years to the position, and is very well liked.