Int. Foul

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by IREFU2
Ok, like I said, judgement.

Its not a judgement call in this play. Go back to both the NHFS and NCAA rules books and read the definition of an intentional personal foul. If the rules committees were to put a picture in the rules book foul would be the picture of an intentional foul. And what do you mean "no need to add insult to injury?"

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Its not a judgement call in this play. Go back to both the NHFS and NCAA rules books and read the definition of an intentional personal foul. If the rules committees were to put a picture in the rules book foul would be the picture of an intentional foul. And what do you mean "no need to add insult to injury?"

For further reading, from the POE's in the 2000-2001 rulebook also:

5 INTENTIONAL FOULS_ EXCESSIVE CONTACT
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/holding a player by the jersey
- when coach/player says "watch, we're going to foul"
These examples should be be considered intentional any time they occur during a game, not just in the last minutes......officials must have the courage to to appropriately enforce this rule, anytime during the contest, but especially when time is running out.

As Mark said, no judgement involved.

[carldog]

Last minute, with Team B trailing by 8. A1 dribbles away from B1, pulling away. B1 reaches out and pushes A1 in the buttocks.

Common foul called.

I sure do not see many intentional fouls called this season.

[IREFU2]

I guess I have put myself in a hole. But, out of all the games I have observed, that were close, and players wrapped the other player trying to draw the foul, I have not yet seen an intentional foul called. The use of the word "judgement" was not a good word. I guess it differs how you apply the rule from officia1 to official. My application would just call the common foul "unless" excessive contact was made. Sorry to cause any confusion. BTW, thanks for the all of the rules posted, but I know the rule. Happy New Year.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by IREFU2
I guess I have put myself in a hole. But, out of all the games I have observed, that were close, and players wrapped the other player trying to draw the foul, I have not yet seen an intentional foul called. The use of the word "judgement" was not a good word. I guess it differs how you apply the rule from officia1 to official. My application would just call the common foul "unless" excessive contact was made. Sorry to cause any confusion. BTW, thanks for the all of the rules posted, but I know the rule. Happy New Year.

Excessive contact is not a necessary prerequisite for an intentional foul. Do yourself a favor. Call it. If everything work out you'll avoid OT and you will have made the correct call. Always nice when you get home in time for dinner! LOL.

[thumpferee]

I do have to say, watching D1 games on TV, the officials tend to give the advantage to the defense when the clock is an issue.
ex: throw in, A reaches around B grabbing him. Common foul. Even though everyone in the entire gym knows it was intentional, give the benefit of the doubt unless blatant seems to be the rule.

Coaches are to blame also. They start screaming, foul..foul! Next thing you know, someone is on the floor. Then there is no doubt an intentional should be called.

[Snake~eyes]

This is black and white, I don't really see the confusion here.

[rockyroad]

A question for IREFU2...So if the defensive player bearhugs an offensive player without the ball 1:10 into the first quarter, would you call an Intentional Foul then? I'm asking because your argument seems to rest on the basis of it being a close game near the end of regulation...if you would call the intentional in the fist quarter, you should be willing to call it near the end of the game also...

Or is this simply a situation where you don't consider any bearhug at any time during the game to be intentional???

[IREFU2]

Good questions! What I would probally do is notice the fact that the game is close (meaning the coach will be yelling Foul!!! Foul!) and I would call the foul immedially upon contact and if he wraps the player, I would warn him of the fact. Maybe I am wrong for this way of applying the rule, but I have not seen on called yet in a close game, especially if the team is down trying to stop the clock.

[IREFU2]

Good questions! What I would probally do is notice the fact that the game is close (meaning the coach will be yelling Foul!!! Foul!) and I would call the foul immedially upon contact and if he wraps the player, I would warn him of the fact. Maybe I am wrong for this way of applying the rule, but I have not seen on called yet in a close game, especially if the team is down trying to stop the clock.

[Hotlink501]

The fouls listed in the 2000-2001 POE's are what is commonly referred to as stupid fouls, and you have to penalize stupid fouls with the proper penalties, (ie, 2 shots and ball at spot closest to foul). This will in turn stop a lot of these stupid fouls especially if all officials followed the same patterns of calling them.

[canuckrefguy]

If the first three fouls were legitimate "plays on the ball", why couldn't they just keep doing that?

[ref18]

Now I've got a question related to this,


In the last seconds of the game, you've got a coach who's down by 3 yelling at his team to foul, obviously to stop the clock. Now you can see there's direct intent to foul, but the contact that his players put on the offence is enough to cause a disadvantage but not excessive. Do we call this intentional because of the intent to stop the clock??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ref18

In the last seconds of the game, you've got a coach who's down by 3 yelling at his team to foul, obviously to stop the clock. Now you can see there's direct intent to foul, but the contact that his players put on the offence is enough to cause a disadvantage but not excessive. Do we call this intentional because of the intent to stop the clock??

The FED said in that old POE that it was supposed to be an intentional foul if the coach was hollering sumthin' like "foul them". Common sense (imo) sez that if the defender makes a legitimate attempt to play the ball (in your opinion), then just call it normally- i.e. a regular personal foul. I think that the purpose and intent of the intentional foul rule is to differentiate between normal defensive fouls and fouls that aren't designed to be part of a normal defensive play such as trying to steal the ball or block a shot, etc.

Iow, if you feel that the defender is trying to make a legitimate steal, etc. and fouls while doing so, forget about the intentional foul.

[canuckrefguy]

Dunno about Fed Rules, but NCAA states:

Rule 4.
Art. 6. Intentional personal foul. An intentional foul shall be a personal foul that, on the basis of an officialÂ’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.

Really, when a coach is yelling "foul, foul" he's really saying "stop the clock or get the ball back", so calling based on the coaches words (and not the foul) doesn't seem right.

If there is a legitimate, non-flagrant play on the ball, a common personal foul will do IMO.