I am interested to hear others opinions about distinguishing between a hard foul or if the foul should be called Intentional. I had a couple of instances this weekend where the coach asked if the call should have been intentional. NCAA rules, Boys 14 yrs old, district level ball. Very intense and competitive teams. This level would be considered equivalent to High school JV in the States.
First the defender jumped in the air to try and block a pass near mid court, as he landed the offense stepped forward. The defender did not make an attempt to avoid the other player and hit him quite hard. I called the foul but did not see it as an intentional. Second instance was Player was driving to the hoop for a layup, defender jumps to make a play on the ball but bodies the offense. Foul called. As the play continues, the defense apparently continues with his momentum to drive the offense into the basket supports. I was trail and was not in a position to actually see the very end of the play.

My opinion, hard foul should be called in each instance. The second would have constituted an ejection for intent to injure had I seen the actual act. Any comments, remember I am not asking if I made right or wrong call, just where do others draw the line.

This is how I see intentionals -

1. If excessive contact is made during a shot with no play on the ball at all, I will call an intentional.

2. If, off ball a player is holding another player to keep him from getting to the ball or gain an advantage, I will call an intentional foul.

3. And of course, if a player is pushed from behind during a layup or anythig that can cause serious injury, I will call an intentional.

That is in line with the rules, so that how I see them.

Intentional Fouls
 

IREFU2- I agree with with 1 & 3 but I am a little confused by #2. If a player is holding isn't it just that ,holding. What other reason would a player hold other than to gain an advantage ?

There is <b>NO</b> such thing as a hard foul ouside the NBA. If there is excessive physical contact, in the official's opinion, then it should be called either an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul. End of story. Allowing any player to put an opponent into a basket support through excessive contact is just wrong. Jmo but anyone that allows these so-called hard fouls to happen is gonna end up having a whole buncha trouble in a game sometime.

Sorry, but I just hate hearing an official say "Oh, that was just a hard foul". It's usually a cop-out for not having the nads to call an intentional or flagrant foul. Jmo.

Re: Intentional Fouls
 

I have seen players actually holding another player to keep them from getting to a specific spot from time to time or actually pushing them out of the way. I have called it maybe once or twice in my career and it was warranted. It is certainly out of the normal.

Re: Intentional Fouls
 

If you read POE #3 on intentional fouls at the back of the rule book, it might help your confusion.

The POE sez that an intentional foul is grabbing or holding a player from behind or away from the ball at anytime during the game.

Re: Re: Intentional Fouls
 

I am not confused, I dont think???? LOL!!!

POE #3
 

I understand the first two bullet points. I also understand the grabbing/holding from behind.
The away from the ball is what I want to talk about.Player A (offense) Player B (defense). A is say at free throw line , player B is between A and basket. A makes a cut is held by B before he gets behind B . Thats an intentional foul ? Then when would we have a holding foul ?

I think that was one of the test questions, I am checking to make sure.

Question #27 -

If a foul is committed to neutralize an opponents obvious advantageous position, its an intentional foul (True)

See rule 4-19-3

By NFHS rules #1 is incorrect. You can play the ball and still cause excessive contact, thus drawing an intentional foul.

Thanks, I believe that was a given though.

I don't understand. How is this a foul on an airborne player who is returning to the floor when the opponent obtained position after the player was airborne? How is his supposed to avoid the opponent? Why is the opponent, an offensive player, taking this position to begin with?

I think this conflates two separate principles with regard to calling intentional fouls. When the ball is live, any contact (excessive or not) made with no play on the ball or player is an intentional personal foul. And any excessive contact (even when playing the ball or a player) is an intentional personal foul.

I totally agree with you on this, but I have seen excessive contact making a play for the ball and no intentional called. I guess the calling official would have to determine if the contact was excessive or not.

Yea your right questioning thatinterpretation. The defender had landed and his momentum continued to carry him forward, at the same time the offensive player stepped forward. The contact occurred and it was called. I saw no need for Intentional or flagrant here. In my second example I think that a flagrant was definately called for at the least. Thanks JR that was a good comment.

At the least? What could be more severe than "flagrant?" ;)

Ejection....followed by suspension.



[Edited by SmokeEater on Nov 28th, 2005 at 03:59 PM]

ART. 3 . . . 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.

"Ejection....followed by suspension" is not a type fo foul, nor a call an official can make.

A flargrant foul leads to ejection (unless you're arguing the semantics of ejection vs. disqualification), and suspension is an administrative issue that's not part of the paying rules and not part of the official's duties.

So, "flagrant" is the "most severe" type of foul.

omg...you say argueing semantics...

Ejection = disqualification

Reported to league followed by suspension of playing privledges = Requested by league for Referees to report all Technical foul situations and Disqualifications on back of game sheet.

That's simply not true. Ejection and disqualification are not equvalent. If a participant is ejected, then he is also disqualified. But the reverse is not true. A player who is disqualified due to committing 5 personal fouls is not ejected. In HS, even if a player is DQ'd for 2 T's, he is not normally ejected. These are definitions, yes, but not mrere semantics. There is an important distinction.

That's great, but that's not the FED rule. And even in NCAA rules, the official does not issue the penalty of the suspension. So Bob was telling you what the rule was; not busting your chops.

I understand that difference Chuck. And I appreciate your mentioning that. In the example above it would be the same result for I was not saying that it was about a 5th foul.

I never said the referee would ever have to assess the suspension at any time. I said that one would follow and I had been asked to make the report of the ejection on the back of the game sheet for the league.

This has been great discussion but again I will refer to the original post.

Thanks again everyone for your opinions, we all have something to share and learn.