Hi again...

Last night in rec league (which is governed by high school, fed rules), we were down 6 in the final couple minutes. We wanted to start fouling, and we especially wanted to start fouling one player who is a poor shooter (hack-a-shaq strategy).

We called time out; our opponents had possession, and were going to inbound after the timeout.

I went and asked the refs:

1. after the inbound, can we just wrap her up and foul her even though she doesn't get the ball? In other words, is a foul away from the ball like that ok as a common foul or is it always an intentional foul?

2. could we do the same thing even before the inbound so that no time runs off the clock at all?

The two refs disagreed on the answer. So I said: I'm taking it to the Official Forum.

What's the right call?

thanks much.

Under NFHS rules, that is a classic intentional foul.

R4-19-3--<i>"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or not playing the ball."</i>

Read Monfanz's post about the game s/he had last night, specifically regarding the 2nd intentional foul called. I agree with JR..no brainer intentional foul.

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/19037

This is such a clear cut case that the ref who didn't think intentionals should be called deserves to be locked in a closet with Bobby Knight and Ron Artest.

Off ball wrap around is easy intentional foul call.

thanks much!

so, in essence, if you want to foul at the end and only commit a common foul, you have to wait for the inbound and wrap up the player with the ball.

appreciate the help, as always.

It was a good idea, but don't say "wrap-up". You can have a common foul for illegal use of hands even tho the ball is not in bounds. Just make it look like you are playing defense on the player. But the way they would foul shaq like the others have said is a no-brainer int. foul.

I'm not so sure.

Foul (such as a hold) a person (not hard) making a cut to the inbounder before the ball is inbounded. If the officials call it correctly, and you "commit" the foul correctly, this is just a common foul during a live ball. No times should come off the clock. If it does, bring it to their attention. They MUST correct the obvious timing error.

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.

No!

A wrap-up is usually an easy intentional foul.

A wrap-up away from the ball is ALWAYS an easy intentional foul.

PLAY THE BALL!

got ya -- thanks for the clarification. I will pass it on to the team!

That is why I said don't say "wrap-up". You can hold or impede the progress of the player & get a common foul called. A two hand bear hug is an intentional foul any where on the court.

On that note, what happens if a foul occurs BEFORE the throw-in? Don't have my book with me.

Thanks

It can be an intentional or a common foul, depending how the player is going to impede the progress of the player. You can have a common foul with the clock not running. The ball is live once it is at the disposal of the person throwing the ball inbounds.

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][/QUOTE]Um, Mike, did you happen to miss the FED POE that states that it <b>is</b> an intentional foul in this case?

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

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.

Depends.

If you mean before the throwin STARTS, then the foul will be an IT or FT (contact that's not I or T will be ignored).

If you mean before the throw in ENDS (but after it starts), then it's just like any other live ball foul.

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

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

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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

Nope, that's <b>not</b> 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 <b>"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"</b>. 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 <b>if</b> 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"?

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 <b>"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting..."</b>. Quite simply, they are telling you that fouling to stop the clock is <b>not</b> a legitimate play and <b>is</b> supposed to be an intentional foul.

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.