Boys Frosh.

Team B down by 5 points 1:30 left with only 2 team fouls.
Team B is fouling to try to get 7 team fouls. First 3 fouls are good fouls going after the ball. B1 hugs A1 after inbounds pass. No attempt to play the ball. Int. foul on b1, 2 shots and the ball. What do you think?

In general, where should int. foul be called in the end of game situations. SHirt grab and breakaway fouls of course.

When I'm reffing, this is definately an intentional foul.

(Except maybe in a co-rec game - and then they better be teammates!)

Nope, just call the foul and let it go. No need to add insult to injury. Now if he takes him down like a tackle, then......call the intentional.

Disagree. "Hugging" with no attempt at the ball is an easy intentional. It was even a POE last year. It's not a "basketball play", so let's get it out of the game.

I kind of disagree. When you know the other team is trying to foul to stop the clock and a play huggs the ball handler in an attempt to stop the clock, why call an intential foul? Just stop the play with a common foul. I guess it would be a judgement call on the officials behalf.

1. Because it's an obvious intentional foul.
2. Because it was HS POE just one year ago.
3. Because Hank Nicols says to in his annual NCAA video.

Ok, like I said, judgement.

This one is not a judgement call, the POE states that its a Intentional Foul, and that is what it should be called.

If you read the definition of an intentional foul this pretty much would be the picture that it is trying to paint. Not much judgement involved with this one.

[Edited by Ed Maeder on Jan 3rd, 2005 at 12:28 PM]

I'd say this is a prerogative call rather than a judgment call. Kinda like when B2, losing by 35 late in the 4th, steps over the line inbounding after a made basket by A.

I should add that this scenario is different. When one team is only down by 5 with 1:30 left, the game is not over and you would be hard pressed to justify passing on this intentional foul because you didn't to "add insult to injury."
aw

[Edited by Snaqwells on Jan 3rd, 2005 at 11:34 AM]

Okay, maybe judgement is the wrong word. How about calling the foul right at the point of contact or before the hug? I just find it hard to believe that during a tight game, an intential foul would be called when in fact you know for a fact that the coach wants to foul to stop the clock.

My sentiments exactly Snaqwells.

If you still have last year's rule book, it might be helpful if you read a section of it (on page 74):

<B><U>2003-04 POINTS OF EMPHASIS</b></u>
<b>6 END-OF-GAME SITUATIONS/INTENTIONAL FOULS</b>
<i>When a player fouls and an opponent is clearly not playing the ball, an intentional foul <b>MUST BE CALLED</b>.</i>

It couldn't be any plainer as to exactly how the NFHS wants this play to be called. There's no judgement involved. It's an intentional foul if the defender wraps somebody up without playing the ball.

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.

Because fouling to stop the clock is by explicit rule definition an intentional foul. You might want to review 4-19-3.

IMHO this one's a no brainer - call the X. To not do so gives an advantage to the fouling team and disadvantage to the team that was fouled.

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.

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

<b><u>5 INTENTIONAL FOULS_ EXCESSIVE CONTACT</b></u>
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......<b>officials must have the courage to to appropriately enforce this rule, anytime during the contest, but especially when time is running out</b>.

As Mark said, no judgement involved.

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.

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.

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.

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

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???

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.

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.

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.

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

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??

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 <b>your</b> 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.

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 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.

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.

Your better Coaches when they want a foul will call a specific play such as "Code Red" Or we're in "black" which means "foul em". When to call an Intentional has no bearing on the score, quarter etc.

I think you misinterpreted what I said...I was not saying anything about calling/not calling based on the time or score.

What I meant was, a coach yelling "foul" doesn't automatically make the resulting foul intentional. A coach doesn't simply want his team to foul for the sake of fouling. They either want to stop the clock or get the ball back. If there were an opportunity to get the ball back or stop the clock without fouling, they'd be fine with it.

Failing that, what they're frantically calling for is the last hope available to them - a foul. But that in and of itself does not constitute "intentional".

5 secs left, Team B down by 2, B1 two hands A1 or bear-hugs him, with no attempt to steal the ball, you bet I'm calling an intentional foul.

Hey Canuck..... I agree with you. If he/she is making a legitimate play I would call a common or personal foul whichever applies. All I'm saying is that the better coaches have a set play that removes all doubt about the foul. Assuming, of course, that it's not intentional.

Even if the coach is standing, screaming "foul foul foul," and even if the coach wants his player to bear hug the opponent, his player may just be smart enough to make a legitimate play for the ball. You can't say that a player will always intentionally foul because his coach told him to any more than you can say that a player will never foul when his coach told him not to. Referee the play, don't make it automatic just because of what the coach is saying.

The use of a coded reference to alert his team of the need to foul such as "Code Red" is not used as much as it should be. When a coach is screaming Foul, Foul, Foul he runs the risk of getting the X when his players don't play the ball.

The POE should not be ignored, it's there for a purpose. Your judgement on the proverbial "bear-hug" to be a common foul gives an unfair advantage to the defense.

A good coach will teach his players to be ultra-agressive in these situations in attempting to steal the ball. More often than not the steal will be successful or a common foul would be called, either way you get a positive result while minimizing the risk of the intentional.

A good official will recognize the infraction and assess it accordingly based on what he sees as it related to his knowledge of the rules (including the P's OE).

JH game this year, I had this situation and called the intentional. As my partner administered the free throws, I explained to the player the interpretation. I just told him the next time his coach tells him to foul someone make a play on the ball. We'll shoot 1 and 1 then. (8 fouls on the board)

JR,
I remember this, but I don't have my Rules Book from 2000-01. Wish I had kept it. Could you please post exactly what that POE says about the coach yelling to foul the opponents?
Thanks.

JR,
I remember this, but I don't have my Rules Book from 2000-01. Wish I had kept it. Could you please post exactly what that POE says about the coach yelling to foul the opponents?
Thanks. [/B][/QUOTE]
<b><u>POE 5 INTENTIONAL FOULS- EXCESSIVE CONTACT</b></u>
<i>An intentional foul has occurred when a team is obviously committing a foul, late in the game, to stop the clock and force the opponents 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
- grabbing/holding a player by the jersey in order to impede their progress
- <b>when coach/player says "watch, we're going to foul"</b>
- excessive contact on a player attempting a shot</i>
These examples should be considered intentional any time they occur during a game, not just in the last minutes.

Yeah, I saw that in your first post, and didn't mean to make you repeat it, sorry. But is that really all that it says regarding the coach? I thought that there was something else in paragraph form. Maybe it was a comment or something?
Don't mean to be a bother this morning, but this has been bothering me for a few weeks now, since a colleague asked me about it and I couldn't locate it.

There was something issued on the NFHS web site when this POE was put out, if I remember right. I'll look through some old junk- I think that I printed it off at that time to talk about at one of our early meetings that year. Hopefully, I still got it squirreled away someplace. Maybe MTD SR. has got something in the attic and can help out. Mark? Anyway, it said something about telling us that we <b>had</b> to call the intentional foul if the coach was hollering "foul him, foul him", even though the defender might actually foul while making what looked like a legitimate attempt at a steal. The consensus that we came up with, after discussion, was that we were gonna call the play by regular standards--i.e. normal personal foul if the defender played the ball: intentional foul if the defender played the player. Most officiating groups came to the same conclusion, I think, which is why that particular part of the POE was never strictly called as originally written. I think that there was more concern at that time, anyway, by the FED about officials not calling intentional fouls when defenders were wrapping their arms around someone or fouling someone off-ball.

Does that sound just about right for where you were officiating at that time?

that's how we interpreted it
 

I looked for my old notes and can't find them now, but that is how we have interpreted it since that POE was printed.

There is no consideration as to what the coach is saying, we officiate the play and players on the "gotta foul" plays that occur.

Thanks
David

The NFHS and the NCAA issues POE's yearly. Some items stay a POE for years, some items are there for a year and gone the next. The NFHS 2000-01 POE regarding intentional fouls included a list of actions that are to be considered intentional fouls. The 2004-05 NFHS Rules Book does not list intentional fouls as a POE, but that does not invalidate the list of actions that the NFHS posted in its 2000-01 POE.

I am a firm believer that if Coach B yells for his players to foul and B1 commits, what would normally be a common foul, a foul against A1, that foul is an intentional foul. Have I lived by that rule? Yes. It happened during a boys' H.S. varsity game late in the 2000-01 season. Late in the fourth quarter, Team A has a throw-in in front of Team B's bench after a timeout. A1 inbounds the ball to A2. Coach B tells B2 to foul A2. B2 hacks A2 across the wrist as he attempted to start his dribble. Tweet! Intentional foul on B2. Coach B couldn't believe it and I told him to read this year's POE's. Believe it or not, no technical foul on Coach B.

MTD, Sr.

Even though I haven't met you Mark, I think by looking at your writtings that I have to beleive your story. You would call it and the coach wouldn't get irrate that it happened.:-)

I was watching the BV game after my game last night and the same situation came up. Team down by one point and they were fouling. The last foul was a wrap and no intentional was called, just a common foul with put the team on the line. So it seems like this is a call the is very seldom made.

I wouldn't say that he wasn't irate, but he was not a very happy camper over the situation. But it is my belief that he didn't press the issue because everybody around us heard him yell at this player to foul the dribbler.

MTD, Sr.

Interesting - I've called half a dozen already this season. The most recent was earlier this week - boys game, just under 2 minutes left & visitors up by 8. Visitors are running motion offense with lots of outside passes to take time off the clock, home coach is yelling "foul him", so one of his players grabs opponent with the ball from behind. Mr. Fox sings & I call the X - home coach says rather excitedly "How can you call that intentional, we were just trying to stop the clock?" to which I replied "which by rule is an intentional foul".