I guess my response is that what your heading toward is the next time the kid who swiped and didn't get the call has an opportunity, chances are there'll be a push, shove, or something harder. This is especially true if the kid believes he fouled the payer the first time. Most of the time these kids are coming out of timeouts or are in situations where the coach has instructed them to foul. If he doesn't get the call, he's going to wonder why and may make sure he gets it next time. I also believe, with a few exceptions, most coaches know the part about going for the ball and tell their players to make sure they do that. I just think in these situations, preventing the hard/intentional foul is the better course of action. I admit the tough call comes when A1 passes the ball (playing keep away) and gets hit after the ball is on its way to a teammate because the fouler just didn't get to him in time to foul when he still had the ball. I'm talking about normal contact by the player attempting to foul. Unless contact is severe or excessive, I believe most officials (myself included) would pass on that call. That's why I said 99% instead of 100%. I also believe that most "foulers" in that situation realize they didn't get there in time and play on.

I tend to look at it based on how the offense is handling the situation. If the offense is playing keep away, and doing it well, I'm not going to call little brush fouls just because the defense isn't quick enough to make a good attempt at the ball. If the defense grabs a jersey or wraps their arms around a guy from behind, I have no problem calling the intentional - I've done it and never second guessed it. However, if the offense isn't making an effort to keep from getting fouled. For instance, the kid with the ball is standing there holding the ball just waiting to get fouled, I'll call the touch foul as a common foul. Like most of everything else, it kind of depends on the situation - everything is relative.

Smitty, I think this is the best answer I've ever heard. (Mostly b/c it's the same as what I said 20 minutes ago :D )

This only goes to prove that great minds do indeed think alike. :)

Remember the old adage of not anticipating a call and blowing the whistle too soon? I'm wondering if this might apply here as well. You're anticipating that if you don't get this slight contact now, there will be harder contact later. What if there is no harder contact later? Granted, it does happen. But not all the time. And you just helped the one team out by stopping the clock (which is what they wanted) and calling a "slight" foul, something that you wouldn't have called earlier in the game.

Chuck's example is a good one - if the player is standing there, for all practical purposes waiting to be fouled, call the contact as soon as the defender is there. But it wouldn't be any different in the beginning of the game - say the player is standing there trying to signal a play, and the defender does the same thing, it will also be a foul.

I think we agree on what's intentional. And I certainly agree we do adjust during a game. But we adjust during a game based on what the players have done. In this case, I think you're adjusting based on what the players might do. It's a slight difference, but I think it's important. Call what's there, don't call what isn't there, and call it consistently.

Actually, if you look at one of my earlier posts I said to NOT anticipate a call because I've seen a good clean play called as a foul. I don't think it's a stretch to think that there "might" be harder contact coming next when you let slight contact go because you know that the team is going to try to make contact if they don't get a clean steal while making a play on the ball. That doesn't require a crystal ball or any genius.

Hey, I have tried this both ways in my not-so-distinguished career. For me personally, it has turned out a lot worse when I have let the first contact go (frustration fouls, much harder, generally ensue). Do what works for you.

Z