Fed rule - foul away from ball on inbound

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I had a coach tell me he was going to do this once. Good strategy in my mind. Some argue that it's intentional if he tells you about it. In my mind, he's just helping me call a foul that wants to be called, before it gets escalated to an excessive contact foul. [/B]

Um, Mike, did you happen to miss the FED POE that states that it is an intentional foul in this case?

2000-01 NFHS rulebook-- POE #5 on p.68-- "Acts that must be deemed intentional include when a coach/player says 'watch, we're going to foul'."

Iow, according to the rules, it is an intentional foul. Now whether you're actually gonna call it or not is a whole 'nother debate. Personally, if the defensive player makes a play on the ball, I'm not gonna call it intentional. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ya, I think it's a tough one to gage. Do we penalize a team; because how can we be sure that the coach told his team to foul "on purpose", unless we actually heard it.

The only evidence we have might say that the intent of the act was not the same as what we were told.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

Um, Mike, did you happen to miss the FED POE that states that it is an intentional foul in this case?

2000-01 NFHS rulebook-- POE #5 on p.68-- "Acts that must be deemed intentional include when a coach/player says 'watch, we're going to foul'."

Iow, according to the rules, it is an intentional foul. Now whether you're actually gonna call it or not is a whole 'nother debate. Personally, if the defensive player makes a play on the ball, I'm not gonna call it intentional. [/B]

Ya, I think it's a tough one to gage. Do we penalize a team; because how can we be sure that the coach told his team to foul "on purpose", unless we actually heard it.

The only evidence we have might say that the intent of the act was not the same as what we were told. [/B][/QUOTE]By a strict reading of the POE, it's not a tough call to guage at all. If the coach tells you his team is gonna foul,as you said he did in your original post, then it's supposed to be an intentional foul if they do so. Now, whether we call it the way that the FED wants us to is a whole 'nother story.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
By a strict reading of the POE, it's not a tough call to guage at all. If the coach tells you his team is gonna foul,as you said he did in your original post, then it's supposed to be an intentional foul if they do so. Now, whether we call it the way that the FED wants us to is a whole 'nother story.

If I don't hear the coach tell his player to intentionally foul, then when warranted, I've got a common foul.

I don't think that Fed's intent was to extend the penalty when we don't have direct evidence.

What if the HC says in a joking matter, "we're going to foul"? What if he says it to an AC? Another player? A fan? At these points, I think we're looking for mucous hanging from someone's nose.

Granted, in my case, he told me, but I think it's too much of a stretch to call an INT if I don't know the instructions to his team. Say B3 decides to ignore the coaches instruction and then actually gets a good chance to intercept the ball. In doing so, he then fouls. Is that an INT? No.

This POE is nothing more than the Fed micromanaging the game. It's not beneficial to the team. Let the official make the call and earn his stripes.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
[/B]

Granted, in my case, he told me, but I think it's too much of a stretch to call an INT if I don't know the instructions to his team.
[/B][/QUOTE]That's what I've been saying. You said that "some argue that it's an intentional if he tells you about it". I'm simply telling you those "some" you mentioned are completely right, as per the rule book. There's no argument involved in that one. The only argument is whether to actually follow the POE or not. As I said before, if the defender plays the ball, I won't call the intentional. If the defender doesn't play the ball, I will. That's the purpose and intent of the rule anyway.

[JugglingReferee]

If the POE was, "I've instructed my players to commit a common foul before the ball has inbounds status," then maybe I have something other than a common foul, because I suspect the Fed's reason for the POE is to cut down on obvious first-degree fouls.

If you know the reason/rationale behind the POE, please do share with me.

It's possible that a referee hears a coach tell him a foul is coming without matching the POE's rationale. In that regard: common foul.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
What if he says it to an AC?

If the coach talks to the air conditioner, you have a bigger problem than just whether to call an intentional foul or not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee

It's possible that a referee hears a coach tell him a foul is coming without matching the POE's rationale. In that regard: common foul.

Nope, that's not what the POE is saying. The POE says that if the coach tells you that they're gonna foul, then an intentional foul is the right call to make. The rationale used by the FED in the POE is "An intentional foul has occured when a team is obviously committing a foul, late in the game, to stop the clock and force the opponent into a throw-in or free-throw situation". The language cited is right out of the POE. If the coach is telling you that a foul is coming, what other reasons could he possibly have in telling his players to commit that foul other than wanting to stop the clock and put the other team on the line? If he wanted them to go for the steal, why would he tell them to foul instead?

Note that I'm not telling you that you or anyone else should follow that POE. I'm just telling you what the correct call is if you do follow the POE.

[M&M Guy]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Nope, that's not what the POE is saying. The POE says that if the coach tells you that they're gonna foul, then an intentional foul is the right call to make. The rationale used by the FED in the POE is "An intentional foul has occured when a team is obviously committing a foul, late in the game, to stop the clock and force the opponent into a throw-in or free-throw situation". The language cited is right out of the POE. If the coach is telling you that a foul is coming, what other reasons could he possibly have in telling his players to commit that foul other than wanting to stop the clock and put the other team on the line? If he wanted them to go for the steal, why would he tell them to foul instead?

Note that I'm not telling you that you or anyone else should follow that POE. I'm just telling you what the correct call is if you do follow the POE.

My only question would be that was a POE back in '00 - '01 - does that still apply today? It wasn't specifically written into the rules that way since then. Perhaps the committee realized that fouling to stop the clock was a legitimate play, because you have to give up something (a foul) to get what you want (the clock stopped). It seems as though the current POE's on intentional fouls now have more to do with not playing the ball and fouling harder than the situation warrants. Has the definition of "intentional" evolved a little to not include simply "on purpose"?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by M&M Guy
[/B]

1)My only question would be that was a POE back in '00 - '01 - does that still apply today? It wasn't specifically written into the rules that way since then.

2) Perhaps the committee realized that fouling to stop the clock was a legitimate play, because you have to give up something (a foul) to get what you want (the clock stopped). [/B][/QUOTE]1)Yes, the POE still applies; that's because the applicable rule hasn't changed.

2) Nope, the committee quite obviously doesn't think that fouling to stop the clock is a legitimate play. If they did, they would have to remove rule 4-19-3 from the rule book completely. That rule states that "An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting...". Quite simply, they are telling you that fouling to stop the clock is not a legitimate play and is supposed to be an intentional foul.

[Camron Rust]

Do we really thing a bunch of 16 year old always listen to the coach? If I hear...foul them...it only heightens my awareness for a possible intentional foul. The call denpends on the act. If A1 goes up for a shot and B1, who has 4 clean blocks in the game and 3 fouls on not-so-clean blocks, swats at the ball. B1 gets arm, just like the first 3. Intentional...NO! Doesn't matter what the coach said. Not what the POE is intended to cover.

If the coach has said foul and there is any doubt about intent....intentional.