Intentional Foul at End of Game

Robmoz · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 01:24pm

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?

Junker · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 01:31pm

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.

Robmoz · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 01:45pm

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]

Junker · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 01:51pm

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.

tharbert · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 02:03pm

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.

Adam · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 02:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Junker
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.

Jeff, which teams?

Junker · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 02:14pm

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.

Adam · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 02:18pm

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

Jimgolf · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 03:37pm

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.

Malcolm Tucker · #10 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 03:45pm

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

rwest · #11 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 03:54pm

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

Junker · #12 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 03:57pm

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.

Back In The Saddle · #13 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 04:03pm

Quote:

Originally posted by rwest
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

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

rwest · #14 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 04:09pm

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

Junker · #15 (**permalink**) Tue Dec 07, 2004, 04:24pm

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.