Editorial change: What's the difference?

[Back In The Saddle]

There were a few editorial changes this year. One change was the definition of an intentional foul. I've read it a couple of times and I don't understand what they're getting at. It seems to be all the same words and phrases only rearranged a little. Is there some deep semantic clarification that I'm missing here?

The previous version:

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 when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

The new version:

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and ard not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

[BktBallRef]

They simply added a second statement that distinguishes different scenarios.

For example, the first statement simplay addresses situations such as pushing a shooter from behind on a breeakaway layup. The second statement addresses situation where a player fouls to stop the clock or to prevent it from stopping. Previously, both processes were addressed in the same statement.

I don't know if you're missing that difference or not.

[Camron Rust]

It makes it clear that there are several different ways to have an intentional foul that are not connected with one another. There were some officials that believed that all elements were necessary to be intentional.

[Mark Dexter]

While the semantics changes pointed out previously are true, I think the biggest change is in regard to fouls "designed to stop or keep the clock from starting."

Per a technical reading of the previous rule, ANY foul which was designed to stop the clock (even if part of playing the ball) should be called an intentional foul. The new rule gives some discretion to do what we've always done - call a common foul when the losing team is using 'legitimate' fouls to stop the clock.

[rainmaker]

And the language is just less convoluted. The sentences are cleaner, and better worded. It seems like a good attempt at clearing up some of the ambiguities.