To follow up on Kelvin's thread ....Actually this leads top a great situational question.

Many times the end of the game situation warrants one team to intentionally try to foul to force clock stoppage or FT's. Usually this results in a simple two hand hold or some type of push. In every case, we know this to be an intentional act but do we call it intentional?

To help teach our newer officials...
[list][*]What are your thoughts about severity of contact in avoiding the "X" and calling a common push, hold, etc.?[*]Do you consider any other factors (i.e. margin of difference in score, time left on clock, chirpy coach asking for "X")?[*]Do you touch on this topic in your pre-game with your partners?[*]Do you have a consitent philosophy in this situation that coaches come to rely upon?

Make sure they at least look like they're making a play on the ball. Severity does come into play, you don't want a losing team out there headhunting. Whenever this situation arises, I always talk to my partner and make sure we get the first one because if you let one go, the second will be harder.

Its prudent to be aware of these end of game situations and be prepared to get the foul call promptly so that any escalation can be avoided. Personally, I tend to go with the common foul on anything short of a violent act. Sometimes I struggle with assessing the "X" when B1 simply grabs A1 while not getting at the ball.

Similiarly, I try to anticipate the calling of a TO after a FT or made basket by keeping the coach in my peripheral

[Edited by Robmoz on Dec 7th, 2004 at 01:49 PM]

I agree with you. I had a game last week (lower level) where the coach his players beging to fould with 5 minutes left in the game. We shot 4 minutes of double bonus making it the longest quarter in the history of the game (or so it seemed). This is one where I was actually looking for an intentional, just to the the coach to let us play a little. Unfortunately there wasn't one even close. His ploy didn't work, they still lost by 8.

I've heard from both JUCO and HS interpreters that if the coach is screaming for his team to foul and they don't go for the ball, it's an intentional foul. I usually remind the players on an OOB, free throw, or other lull in the action to be sure they go for the ball if they want a foul.

Jeff, which teams?

I want to say it was SE Polk, but I don't remember for sure. It was such a crappy night I think I've blocked it out and I've been going 4-5 nights a week and they're blurring together at times.

Had their Soph boys last night in an OT game at Roosevelt.

You are referring to a strategic foul, not an intentional foul. Even if Coach is yelling, "Foul him! Foul him!", foul must meet criteria for intentional foul to make call.

Yes I agree it is better to call the common foul quickly to avoid escalation. We have called intentional foul an unsportsmanlike foul for some time now.

But what amazes me is that players have no trouble in committing fouls during the game but ask them to do it at the end to stop the clock and it becomes comical

This is by definition an intentional foul
 

Jimgolf,

A foul when not playing the ball to stop the clock is by definition an intentional foul. There is no such thing as a strategic foul, at least not from an officiating stand point. Can't find it in the book. The foul described meets the criteria for an intentional foul. The severity of the foul is not a requirement, with one exception. You can call an intentional foul when the player is playing the ball if the contact is severe enough.

Having said all this, last year was my first year officiating. I only called one intentional foul: a push from behind on a break-away lay-up. In another game I had a pushing foul late in the 4th period that I did not call intentional. The player was definitely not playing the ball and was attempting to stop the clock. The push was not severe. I'm thinking I should have called an intentional foul. The coach was asking why I didn't call it. My partner came over and told the coach it was not an intentional foul. I don't remember if we discussed it after the game or not, but I'm now wondering if he bailed me out. He's an experienced official (he's our JV assignor) and maybe he saw the "deer-in-the-headlight" look in my eyes. To be honest I was not thinking in terms of intentional or not when I called the foul. I know I should have, but I'm being transparent.

So my question is this, by the strict letter of the law, this was an intentional foul: not playing the ball and designed to stop the clock. Why then do some officials not want to call this intentional? Should I have in the case I stated above?

This even goes deeper to should I be a strictly by the book official or by the intent of the rules, which sometimes means not going by the letter of the law.

Any thoughts/suggestions?

Thanks!
Randall

I agree Malcolm. I had some freshman girls last night and their coach was begging them to foul. No one got close enough to make contact. It was a comedy of errors so to speak. Didn't bother me though. I was done in time to see ISU knock off Virginia.

Re: This is by definition an intentional foul
 

Just a couple of thoughts, probably worth exactly what you paid for them.

First of all, of course the coach wanted it called. The opposing coach ALWAYS wants it called intentional. But I'll guarantee you that if the roles were reversed, he would not want it called against his team.

As to why more intentionals aren't called, I think it's a chicken and egg thing. More officials would call them if more officials called them. As the saying goes, you can always tell the pioneers by the arrows in their backs. I'm seeing the same thing with the T for being OOB this year. You take a lot of heat for calling it. And if nobody else calls it, then you stick out for making the call. And it isn't necessarily in a good way.

My $.02

Thanks, BITS
 

So, do you think this should be called an intentional foul?
Whats the concensus here? Does anyone think this should be called?

I think most of us would agree that this is a tough one to call without actually seeing the play. The opposing coach will want everything called intentional as discussed earlier. One thing I have done in the past and have had success with on borderline intentionals is to go to the player or the coach and just say, "Make sure you are making a play on the ball. I'd hate to have to go intentional because you're not." Sorry its not a clear cut answer, but this is one you usually have to see to know for sure.

Not according to a POE issued by the NFHS in the 2000-2001 rulebook--i.e. POE #5- "Acts that must be deemed intentional include when a coach/player says 'watch,we're going to foul'". Lot of discussion about that one back then.

I don't understand why a coach wouldn't teach their players see a fouling situation as an opportunity to risk everything to get a steal. Isn't a steal always preferred over a foul in these situations?

We had a game that we were winning by one with four seconds on the clock and the opponent inbounding at 1/2 court. We had three fouls to give so I told me kids to go all out and take a shot at a steal on the first inbound attempt and then try to swat the ball after a dribble or two on the next two attempts. Result: 1st attempt, insane pressure on inbounding team, we steal game over.

They say it's what you emphasize, so why not emphasize steal attempt that results in a foul if you don't get it.

IMHO, 4-19-3 is clear and unambiguous. It is not legal to commit a foul designed to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantage or to stop/keep the clock from starting in NFHS rules - period.

This type of situation usually occurs with time running out in a close game & the team behind is trying to get the ball back to get a chance to score. This is something I always discuss with my partner in pregame.

Bottom line:
1. Any foul committed in this situation had better be related to a legitimate attempt to attack the ball.
2. There had better not be any excessive contact.

Fail either test and I will call the intentional without reservation, and the opponent will get 2 shots and the ball back.

Its an interesting question coach. What I think is interesting is that in the sitch from other post if the coach had yelled GO after the Ball, get the Ball, Got get him or any variation, he would not have picked up the intentional.

But you are right the kids should go hard after the ball, they may force a turn over and at worse they get a foul called on them (and that's what they wanted in the first place)

I know there are even a lot of coaches who have a code word like Red that means go foul without yelling foul..

Tim, do you really call "X" when B1 simply grabs A1 at the end of the game to force the FT? If so, have you done so for a long time or is it something new you would be focusing on?

If B is playing aggressive defense and going after the ball that's one thing, but if they simply grab, hold, push, hug, etc. with the obvious intent of fouling, I'll call the "X" every time.

It's something that I've always done - both the specific definition and the underlying principal of advantage/disadvantage clearly support it.

[Edited by TimTaylor on Dec 8th, 2004 at 12:06 PM]

And that's how Tim's and my assignor wants it called.

That's good to hear that you guys are going with the call. My assignors have told us to be more diligent with these types of end of game scenarios. I am looking forward to seeing how the officials actually respond.

People in my area are not making this call. As a second year official, I admittedly do not want the before-used "arrow in the back" so I am VERY slow to make it. We all know it's in the book, but people don't just avoid the call, they discourage others from making it as well.

Jim, You must have missed the NFHS statement a couple of years ago that flatly stated if the coach is instructing his players to foul, then it is an intentional foul.

It is late and I don't have the energy to look this up right now, but someone else (JR perhaps?) will surely post it for you.

You must not have had the energy to read all the posts in this thread either. :D

The citation from the old POE that you are referring to is at the top of this page.

Everyone has their way of seeing a foul. If they are remotely close to the ball and don't "try to take the player out" I usually don't give the X. If it is hard foul from behind & if A is in a dead run especially on a scoring breakway and gets hammered it's usually a pretty easy X for me. I always tell the teams that when we get to the lanes that we know they are going to foul so they had better be at least get close to the ball.

Hope it is kosher to exhume this thread and inquire whether a defender is courting the X with you if he closes out on the ballhandler, then on the dribble past him uses his near hand to get some jersey while at the same time swinging the far hand around to take a swipe at the ball upward (from which hard contact rarely if ever results.) The coach teaching this method (and calling someting like "Red!" from the bench) is hoping that even those officials with a lower X threshold will view the jersey grab as enough of a quasi-improvised attempt to get the position and leverage to make the upward swipe (admittedly most often a whiff) at the ball to pass muster -- avoiding the intentional, but impeding the ballhandler enough to draw the foul.

Of course if the defender is too slow he will whiff with BOTH hands, drawing nothing and accomplishing even less (the comedy of errors described above.) But I wonder whether you have ever been tempted to X something like this when the jersey is tugged? Would it depend on the severity of the tug? (Assume there is nothing close to a pirouette occuring.) Would it matter if the defenders started tugging with one or two team fouls, rather than five or six?

And might it in fact be an intentional personal foul under the letter of NCAA guideline at least, which describes "grabbing a player's arm or body while initially attempting to gain control by playing the ball directly . . . " as sufficient? Grabbing nothing but fabric seems more plainly a problem under the off-ball guideline ("grabbing holding or pushing A PLAYER"), but might be OK on the ballhandler as the jersey is, most strictly speaking, neither "arm" nor "body"?

As a coach in these situations I really do appreciate the officials that get the first foul on anything close -- and that's true whether I am fouling or being put on the line. When the defenders don't get the calls and start coming at it harder, nothing good can happen, it seems to me, X or no X.

Coach, at the high school level, actually grabbing the jersey should be an X. It can't be explained away as anything <b>but</b> an intentional foul. Now whether the officials are gonna call it that way is a whole 'nother matter. When I get asked by coachs about this, I tell them that they have to give their officials an excuse <b>not</b> to call an intentional foul-- iow make some kinda play on the ball that creates a doubt that the defender was trying to intentionally foul the ball-handler. There really isn't much doubt when you're just grabbing the shirt, even if it's in combination with another action. Hell, all a defender ever has to do anyway is create some contact when reaching for the ball (short of knocking the offensive player on his butt)to keep away from the X. That can't be brain surgery to teach. If you teach your players to grab shirts, then you're taking a chance that the officials you have on that particular game aren't gonna let you get away with it.

And still confusion persists.

If everyone in the gym knows they are going to purposely (notice the use of the word purposely instead of intentionally) foul then the only differentiation between an intential foul and a non-intentional foul is a token swipe at the ball?

I don't know how many different times I'll need to say this, but I'm getting ready for my first year of officiating so obviously my views come without a wealth of experience.

I think we would all recognize a foul made with the primary intent to hurt/punish the opposing player as an intentional foul. We all would also recognize a run-of-the-mill foul as being just a standard foul. In between is a lot of gray area for me. I can't imagine it being as black and white as some have painted it and my initial reaction is that a number of factors come into play:

Severity/violence of the foul
Emotions within the game (is this likely to spark an altercation?)
Intimidation factor (was the foul made in such a way as to intimidate or bully the offensive player?)
Safety of the players (was the offensive player in a defenseless position or braced for the foul?)
Excessiveness of the contact (did the defender make the minimum or maximum contact to draw the foul?)

Until the strategy of committing fouls to prolong the game is regulated, this will remain a very gray area for officials. Does anyone have thoughts on my criteria?

So much depends on the level of the players. In varsity play, most fouls on the back of the ball handler are intentional, especially near the end of the game. Many grabs of the jersey are intentional, especially in the back, especially near the end of the game. Emotions and intimidation lead more to the "excessive contact" end of the "intentional" call, and can even get to the T or the flagrant. If there's any chance the the defender was trying to get the ball, or influence the movement of the ball, I don't call an intentional.

When the team that is trying to foul (note that in the books this past season this is called a "strategic" foul) is just slow and unskilled, and the team with the ball is successfully dodging the contact, you've got to skate the line very carefully. If the team with the ball (and presumably the lead) wants to run time off the clock, they aren't going to welcome the call on the first little contact that happens. But on the other hand, they don't want the defense to get rough in order to get the call. Call it when it's legitimate, but don't be too quick with the whistle.

You've got to draw your own lines, and be sure your lines are reasonably close to the lines drawn by other s in your area. Then you've got to be awayre of the game sitaution, and pay attention to what's happening. DOn't zone out at the end! Watch lots of other games, and figure out what others are going to do in situations so you can fit into your association.

Yeah, I think that you don't have a clue what an intentional foul really is. And you're thinking waaaaaay too much for someone who has never actually officiated a game in their life.The best way to find out about something is to usually to read the appropriate rule. In this case, that would be FED R4-19-3. 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. You very obviously do NOT know the different foul definitions.

I had to edit and go back and comment on the points above because they are so badly wrong.

(1)We punish the <b>act</b> as per the definition of an intentional foul. What everyone in the gym thinks or "knows" isn't relevant to the call.
(2)Trying to hurt/punish an opponent is a <b>FLAGRANT</b> foul. Completely different animal, and defined as such in the rules.
(3)A run of the mill foul can STILL be an intentional foul, depending on how and when it is committed.

Lah me!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 28th, 2005 at 06:11 PM]

Having just finished up a tournament season as a coach of a 7th grade girls AAU team I can honestly say no one around here calls an intentional foul. My point guard was fouled end of game, 7 seconds left, we are up by 1 We in bound ball and the defender grabs my point by the shoulders and throws her into the screen between the two courts. (I should mention that my point was a 4'8" 6th grader playing up and the defender literally tossed her across the floor. The other coach even pulled his player after that). I asked if it was intentional. Ref asks me if I think I'm playing in the NBA and that there is no intentional in NFHS rules, says I should read the rule book, etc.

He wasn't the only ref not to call an intentional. 9 weeks, 9 tournaments, around 40 games played and watched another 40 or so and never an intentional, boys or girls, didn't matter what grade level. I spoke with one of the officials after a tournament and he said that they are told to hold off on the intentionals, so rarely is it called.

Not a complaint, just an observation that the intentional is not something we see around here very often no matter what the level of play.

Coach G

I called one on a bear hug from behind in an AAU game recently. About 20 seconds left in a 5 point game. The coach questioned the call. You are correct that it is not called as often as it should be, but the situation you describe sounds more like a flagrant foul.

That was a little harsh. I understand and appreciate your points. I have made an initial read through the rules, but I also know what I see from officials at all levels of basketball. From 15 years of participating in and watching basketball I would say that at least 95% of officials do not make an intentional foul call according to the letter of the law. My comment was looking for guidance on how the experts on this board distinguish which fouls to call intentional at that stage of the game and which to simply call as a run-of-the-mill foul because I think we all know that there are fouls that fit the definition of intentional which are not called that way in this situation. 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.

Is this the way most of the officials around you call these or are you one of a few hardliners?

Regas-- Jurassic Referee is our resident curmudgeon. He's also an assignor, and as his name implies, our most experienced official, except for Padgett, who was reffing basketball before Naismith was out of diapers.

Jurassic reacted to what he read in your comments, which looked like criticism of referees in general, based on little or no experience as a ref. If that wasn't what you intended -- and it sounds like it wasn't -- then he'll apologize.

We all get a little testy this time of year since from March through June there are an increased number of fans who come here trying to dump on referees in the form of innocent questions. You probably are not one of those, but it looked for a few posts as though you were. We will try to see you more as a new ref and not as a troll, and we'd ask you to word your questions carefully so that Jurassic doesn't go off again.

We don't like trolls at all, but we love new refs. It's always a lot of fun to see how far we can lead them into seriously discussing whether to wear a belt, what brand of shoe is best, and which TV announcer is the all-time worst (you have to choose between Billy Packer and Bill Walton each of whom gets at least a couple of plaques a year for Most Ridiculous Comment, and each of whom has won a couple of Idiot of the Year trophies). Welcome to the board!

Thanks Rainmaker,

I really am here to improve my knowledge and ability to execute the rules of the game. To me, and apparently others as evident by the fact that this thread exists, this is a real gray area. The real-world application of this rule has obviously moved away from the letter of the law allowing for much interpretation and I was hoping by listing the criteria I think of in watching a game others would be able to share their thought process in deciding whether or not to make the intentional foul call.

No hard feelings Jurassic.

That's a good lesson to learn -- learn the "spirit and intent" of the rule, not (just) the "letter of the rule."

On the intentional fouls -- fouls from the front are usually not intentional; fouls from the back are more likely to be. Fouls away from the ball (and when not just "over aggressively" stopping the offensive player from getting to a spot) are more likley to be intentional than fouls on the player with the ball.

IF it's close, give the benefit of the doubt to the defense on the first one, but quietly admonish the defense to be sure they are "going for the ball." Give the benefit of the doubt to the offense on the next one.

Similarly, if it's not close (and not intentional), praise the defense for "going for the ball". Let them know that you're watching and properly giving the appropriate call on the first foul.

I thought the fed made editorial changes this year to clarify that a coach yelling "Foul 'em!" is NOT an automatic intentional, which over rules this (incredibly stupid) POE and introduces into the rules the idea of a strategic foul at the HS level.

Dan, the post that you are citing was made by me back on December 4, 2004. This is a very old thread brought back to life. Iow, I made that post long before the FEd issued that clarification, and at the time of the post that criteria was still valid. As far as I know the rest of the points in that POE are still valid also. That POE Said:

<i>An intentional foul has occurred when a team has obviously committed 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
- grabbing a player away from the ball
- grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be made
- excessive contact on a player attempting a shot
- grabbing/holding a player by the jersey in order to impede their progress</i>

I agree that the part of the POE regarding the coach telling a player to foul was ridiculous.The FED probably clarifed that one again because nobody would make that particular call anyway. The other points from that POE that I listed above are still valid and germane imo, and also still form a good guideline on how/when to call an intentional foul.

Oh. I hate when that happens. Yes, all other points remain valid, whether at the end of game or not.

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.

He's just having an Oscar (the Grouch) moment.

I have seen this thread and didn't bother reading it until now. I read the first page and realized it was old and then I went to the last page to see why it was being posted to again. I stopped after the first post on page three. :(

This is the problem with young(er) officials. You are talking way too much about your views for someone who hasn't worked a year yet! You really shouldn't have such a long post to begin with. Listen, listen, listen should be your main role in any officiating conversation followed by questions. There is so much you don't know about officiating at this point and it is really laughable to see such a long post with your views :D

I'm not saying shut up and color but shut up and col...no I'm just kidding :)

Listening, nodding your head, asking questions and saying OK should be the main things you are doing at this point. This business about intentional fouls isn't so cut and dried or black and white to the point where someone can post the guidelines for calling it. Many factors could come into play. Since almost all games are taped we must also do what is acceptable to our supervisors/assigners. At camp we were told that our games will be available for viewing or download via the internet 2 hours after the game. I will still be on the road and the assigner can be watching how I let someone get mugged or called an intentional foul that virtually ended the game! Many factors involved.

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.

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 <b>you</b> 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 <b>always</b> 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.

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 <font color = red>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</font>. 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:

<b>READ THE RULEBOOK; SPECIFICALLY READ RULE 4-19-3</B>

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

I sureashell also NEVER said that I would <b>always</b> call an intentional foul under those circumstances. If you really want to know, I would penalize the actual <b>act</b>, 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.

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

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.

Nah, you covered it.

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.

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.

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 :D

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.

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:<OL>
<LI>A foul that is designed to stop the clock
<LI>A foul that takes away an opponents obvious advantage
<LI>Excessive contact
</OL>
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]

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?


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


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.


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". :)

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.

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)

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.

It's part of the game, almost every foul when a team is behind in the closing moments is intentional. Until the rule is changed to say every foul is two shots and the ball, officials will have to use judgement.

It seems that there is a common theme to all your posts, a very anti-official one IMO, that if it is not black and white from the rule book, the officials are choosing what rules they like.

My goodness, every call requires judgment, and you seem to ignore that fact.

Officiating is more of an art than a science, you don't seem to get that.

Well, some calls require judgement. Others are stated in black and white, and the fact that some officials (and I am an official... i happen to subscribe to this philosophy) pick and choose which rules to enforce and which to ignore to me is not correct. If every call required judgement, when the ball went out of bounds, some officials might just say "well, close enough to saving it, i'll let it go". The rules say what an intentional foul is. When officials choose to ignore the rules, in favor of what people WANT them to call (and by people, i mean coaches who've never read the rules, bystanders who've never read the rules, etc...), they're not doing their job. If you ask any interpreter, they will back the rulebook. Why is it so tough for the officials under that interpreter to follow their directions and just make the calls as the people who wrote the rules intended?

You state that almost every foul at the end of the game is intentional. The rules do state it is 2 shots and possession for an intentional foul. Where is the problem with this?

I am not being anti-official. I am an official. I am being anti-"I am an official, but i'm going to do whatever I want regardless of the rules". How do you play a game without rules? Even streetball has a number of unwritten rules that you can walk on to almost any street court in the country and have a basic understanding of what they're playing by. Organized basketball has organized rules and cases, and officials who are supposed to follow them - not use the idea of judgement to allow them to ignore the rules in favor of making what they consider to be a better game.

Well since it appears that the majority of officials do in fact use their own judgment in this situation and they continue to work games, perhaps you need to stick with the coaching.

Officials are calling a foul, the judgment comes in deciding common or intentional.

Officials judge in bounds or OOBs using the rules as a guide. Foul or incidental contact using the rules as a guide.

Nothing in the book is automatically applied, everything reguires an official's judgment and interpretation of the rule. What you consider black and white is very gray.

That attitude would explain the number of situations where a rule clearly applies, but the official chooses (read "uses their judgement") not to apply it. I don't believe the people who write the rules and revise them year in and year out write them with the intention of thousands of officials interpreting and applying them thousands of different ways. Some rules leave room for interpretation. Others ARE very black and white. And I feel I am a better official, and can justify my calls if needs be, if I have the backing of the rules. When someone does something which is clearly a violation of the rules, and it is not called correctly, I don't feel that the official has done their job - whether it be me (if I find out later I was wrong), my partner, or an official I have working a game that I am coaching. I leave the judgement calls to the officials. But when the rules say "This is how this is supposed to be handled", and the official chooses (again, read "uses their judgement") completely against the rules to ignore it or not enforce it, they are not doing their job.

Simple example - House rule for league my kids play in: All players must have a jersey with a number. Any players without numbered jerseys will receive a technical foul if they play once the game has started. The coach and players have the option before the game to correct this before the game starts. - Some officials absolutely refuse to give the technicals, even though that is the direction from the person in charge of the league. I understand unusual circumstances, such as the jerseys being ordered but not coming in yet. But late in the season, officials will still refuse to enforce a black and white rule.

You are correct - officials are still working games even though they choose to modify, reinterpret, and ignore some rules. TV Announcers are still working, calling games and stating complete falsehoods related to the game, but they're still working. I would hope that officials, in all sports, would strive to be the best they can be, and to use this judegement, in line with the rules, to have the best game based on the intentions of the rulemakers that they can. I'm sure Dr. Naismith could have never forseen how complicated his game could become, but his original rules were very simple, and I'm sure he enforced them quite well, as written. Why do some officials find it so hard to do the same?

Mountains out of mole hills.

This utter disreguard for the rules is so blatant that the NFHS has ONE case play dealing with end of game fouls and it covers fouling a player without the ball.:rolleyes:

Why does this one "official" have such a self-righteous attitude?

I'm through banging my head against the brick wall.

I'm through banging my head against the brick wall. [/B][/QUOTE]What took so long, BZ? LOL!

You were never gonna get through to him. Waste of time.