8th grade playoffs -- same rules as NFHS except slight timing differences.

earlier in the game partner makes a call and coach comes out about 3-4 feet on the court complaining to partner (partner is lead away from benches) -- i come up as trail and tell the coach if he has a problem with our calls to ask us and not to come on the court again or else it will be a T. Coach's response "Are you serious?" I look at him for a second and say "there's only one way to find out" He returns to his bench.

Now this coach is animated and what not and I already had words with the other coach who yelled across the gym "Bad Call" about 2-3 times -- when i got to the other side i told him "If you have a problem with my call address it to me but next time you call me out across the gym its going to cost you" -- at least he appologized.

Last couple minutes of the game the animated coach is losing and is yelling "FOUL -- FOUL" -- i call the foul and I go to report the nubmer and tell him if he wants his kids to foul he should call it something else as that is an intentional foul. He throws a small fit which i kinda laughed at -- "you cant be serious -- way to take this so serious -- where in the rule book does it say that". At the table is another ref who tells him that its ok to do that as long as its his strategy to stop the game clock. At the next timeout i ask him why would those explicit rules be in the rulebook and casebook if it werent to be called -- not like i gave his player an intentional i talked to him about it first. That ref didnt agree but I made it clear to him.

Couple possesions later one of his players grabs a jersey in an attempt to foul -- tweet "intentional" -- he wasnt happy but in the interest of the game i let him do his song and dance for about 3 seconds then whack. they lost by like 8 or 9.

basically what are yalls input on a coach yelling foul -- now i would never call an intentional right away but i would address it with a coach first. I will even tell him call it what every other coach calls it "x" or what ever. However in retrospect at 8th grade level i shouldve T'd him up earlier when he came on the court but i thought better to manage the situation than possibly make it worse at the time.

If I hear the coach yelling foul, and his team's behind, I'm looking for the first foul I can call so it don't get nasty. If it's a legitimate play on the ball, I've got a common foul and we're marching to the line, assuming we're in the bonus. Jersey grabs, bear hugs, push from behind on a layup, and any of that other non-basketball schtick is gonna get the Capital X from my forearms, 2 shots and the ball for the offended team.

You have to know the game situtation, is a team trying to foul or are they going for a steal? If they are trying to foul then give them an easy foul, the first one that happens otherwise the next one will be a hard foul.

Coaches can yell whatever they want, yelling foul does not make it an intentional foul nor would I make them yell something else.

Fouling is a strategic part of the game.

A few years ago, a FED POE contained some sentence to the effect that "If a coach tells the players to foul, it's an intentional foul."

This year (I think), FED rescinded that -- the coach's language does not determine the type of foul. The player's actions determine the type of foul.

As a coach I teach them to go for the steal and foul in the process. If the foul doesn't get called, we are on our way with the ball which is a better outcome anyway. Occassionally the ball does pop loose without a foul but everyone is kind of anticipating foul at this point so no big whoop if a relatively clean steal is whistled.

In general, I teach my kids to not try to steal the ball from the ballhandler but to force a pass and let teammates cut into passing lanes for steals. Therefore, for us, "get the ball" is a good code for "foul," and we work on it in practice and remind at dead balls.

I don't have my rule book with me as I already passed my Varsity Promotion test Monday night...but i remember reading somewhere in the book that DIRECTLY addresses this situation. That the coach calling for a foul is an appropriate strategy as long as the players make an attempt at the ball. Therefore, not intentional unless player makes no attempt at the ball, or the foul is excessive.

Bob,

You are correct. This year the Fed said this in there Basketball Guide that's published by Referee.

thank
 

you for clearing this up.

Another wrinkle
 

Good info on this thread. Here's a follow-up question. Be forewarned that a coach is asking (politely)...

What about off the ball fouls? Assume a dead ball with a throw-in by A and B1-5 trying to foul A2-5 quickly. Can B aggressively cover their players before the inbound is made, working hard to deny the inbound pass, and maybe fouling in the process if they are too agressive?

I'm not talking about anything blatant such as pulling a jersey, shoving, grabbing or holding. But what about denying hard by face guarding and bumping the cuts? The idea would be that maybe we can get a 5 second violation on A if lucky and and if not, a foul without any ticks off the clock.

Are we flirting with intentionals defending off the ball in this case?

Re: Another wrinkle
 

For me, it would depend on what I saw. Say B2, while gaurding A2, is attempting to go through a screen and pushes A3. Unless the push is over the line (say A3 ends up on the other side of the floor or in the third row), all I would have is a push.

I would treat these fouls the same as fouls that occur during a live ball when I know a team is trying to foul.

Fyi, from POE 3B in this year's rule book: "Conversely, a coach who yells 'Foul' instructions to his or her team does not mean that the ensuing foul is automatically an intentional foul- even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock".

As Bob said, the old, defunct POE from the 2000-01 rule book read "Acts that must be deemed intentional include when coach/player says 'watch, we're going to foul'".

Changed completely.

In the Fed book this year, it says that fouling to stop the clock is "an acceptable coaching strategy." Which is sort of inconsistent with the idea of intentional foul -- and why I would like to see the term changed.

My idea for years has been 2 shots and the ball for any foul inside of 1 minute to play in the fourth quarter. I don't quite understand why the rules committee would say that committing a rules infraction is an "acceptable strategy."

It isn't inconsistent if the players have been coached properly. If the coach is yelling, "foul" we can assume they are behind. The defensive players should be aggressively going for steals. If they pick one clean, no foul. If they get all or part of their man, tweet. When someone says intentional foul I think of the dufus that shoves a player in the back, grabs a jersey, etc, on breakaways and away from the ball. These actons make it REAL clear his/her intentions were ONLY to foul.

Which is exactly why FIBA changed the name from "intentional foul" to "unsportsmanlike foul".

It is impossible for anyone else to accurately judge a person's intentions. It is only possible to judge their actions.

Thank God you're not on the rules committee. Having a rebounding foul in the waning seconds of a tie game carry the same resulting penalty as a technical foul seems an itsy bit harsh to me.

With a little tweaking, he has a good idea. I would like to see something along the lines of the following, "Any foul committed with under 1 minute remaining in the 4th Q or any extra period by the team behind in the score and while the opponent has team control shall result in the awarding of 2FTs and possesion of the ball at the nearest spot."

This annoying foul, foul, foul at the end of games would cease and teams would have to play quality defense.

I'll take a guess as to why they might have said that. The NFHS doesn't dictate coaching strategy. One of their main goals to to provide a fair game by dictating rules. Who can deny that when your team is down late in the forth quarter, you have to stop that clock. You have to get points on the board. Else, your gonna lose. I saw Jimmy V. win every game "coming from behind" by fouling.(at least every game from the sweet sixteen) It's a long shot, but it happens all the time. (Why players can't hit a foul shot is beyond me). He won the NCAA championship by using this strategy. Apparently, it's a pretty good stategy. It's a long shot and it doesn't always work. But, at that point in time, it's your only shot. (I think that they may have added some rules after that tourney, but not exactly sure) So, not to accept that this is a valid strategy would be denying the obvious.

So, the NFHS doesn't pretend to dictate a coaches strategy (except sportsmanship, etc), it definately dictates the players behavior on the court.

NFHS 4-19-3:
..............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 are not based soley on the severity of the act.............

So, while it may be ok for the coach to use this as a strategy, his players BETTER be playing the ball.

I had a game the other night. It was a good one, between two good teams. Late in the forth quarter, visiting team was up by about 5. I'm not sure what the coach was saying (besides "over the back" all night. LOL) It was obvious the home team was going into the "let's foul em" strategy. We checked with the table to make sure we knew the bonus count and any players close to fouling out. Then A1 fouls B1. I blow my whistle. Almost immediately, my partner blows his whistle. I check, he called traveling. I said I had a foul before the travel and the foul casued the travel. As we were going to the other end to shoot foul shots, A1 comes up to me and says something like "wasn't it travel?". I said you fouled him, wasn't that what you were trying to do?. He looks at his team mate and says "Joe, I'm doping here". I had to laugh to myself. What ever "I'm doping here" means.

Anyway, I didn't call the intentional. Could of, probably should have. But, it wasn't a hard foul, only about 7 seconds left on the clock, the game was pretty much over. Of course, both foul shots go in. Clock runs out. It was a good game. (I DID hear the visiting bench yelling "DON'T FOUL, DON'T FOUL")

Somebody has to lose.

Anyway, it's just a guess. NFHS doesn't claim to dictate strategy, just game play.

[Edited by Time2Ref on Feb 16th, 2006 at 08:00 AM]

1983 North Carolina State over Houston 54-52
1984 Georgetown over Houston 84-75
1985 Villanova over Georgetown 66-64
1986 Louisville over Duke 72-69
1987 Indiana over Syracuse 74-73


1986 was the first tourney with a shot clock (45 seconds)
1987 was the first tourney with the three point shot

I believe that the field went to 64 teams in 1985. Prior to that certain teams had byes in the first round.

Rather than in the final minute, perhaps after the shot clock is turned off might be an even better time frame.

So a team down 1, legitimately scrambling to make a steal or a blocked shot, fouls, and the resulting penalty should be two shots and the ball. But not if you're ahead. Wow.

Leave it as is, just call the annoying fouls and get home three minutes later.

As I alwasy find it helpful to read how you handle certain situations in the US (high school and college), I'd like to give you my opinion on intentional/common fouls in the end of games (from a FIBA standpoint, so to say) ...

I think we agree that it is an accepted strategy to foul to stop the clock when your team's behind and time is running down.

But, intentional (or unsportsmanlike, as we call them) fouls have to be called when a player without the ball is fouled to stop the clock (that's not a legitimate play, as long as it is not in the attempt to deny a pass or something like that), the foul occurs before the game clock has been started after a dead ball situation to prevent it from further running down, and of course in all situation where you would call an intentional foul earlier in the game (excessive contact, push, grab from behind and so on).

What we do to prevent players from committing intentional fouls, is call common fouls pretty fast. Every referee should be able to recognize stop-the-clock situations. If a contact occurs with the assumed intention to stop the clock, call it regadless of advantage/disadvantage, so it is not necessary to repeat contact with higher intensity.

Best regards
Kostja

Aggie this "idea" is completely against what the book says and what occurs, in reality, in every gym across the country, at all levels.

The "committing of a rules infraction" (as you put it) carries with it a penalty and if a team chooses to accept the penalty because it gives them a chance to win the game then so be it.

Most states don't have a shot clock for HS...if I'm coaching a team that has a lead I'm going "four-corners" and if my team runs it right the only way the other team is getting the ball back is by putting us on the line.

All that has to happen to end the constant fouling at the end of games is better free throw shooting...nuf said!

The flip side of that method is that you are putting the team with the ball at a disadvantage by calling small contact a foul, stopping the clock, and forcing them to shoot FTs. The team who is ahead is passing the ball around and trying to AVOID being fouled so that the clock will continue to run and you advocate the referee coming in and helping the defense stop that clock!?!?

As well-intentioned as your philosophy is, it sounds like you are helping the team that is behind.

So what's easier, making 2 FTs or a three point shot? Average FT% sixty something. Average 3pt % thirty something.

The addition of the 3pt shot greatly enhanced the strategy of fouling at the end of a game. The most that your team can give up is two points, but you will have a chance for 3 at the other end.

Prior to the three point shot a team could be assured of maintaining its lead if it made its FTs. Now the team could make ALL of its FTs and see the opponent erase its lead with a few treys.

The risk/reward ratio is clearly better today than in the past.

Perhaps a third FT should be considered. 1-1 at 7, 2 at 10, 3 at 12 team fouls or more.
We could use the terms: bonus, double bonus, and super bonus (or triple bonus). :D

So what's easier, making 2 FTs or a three point shot? Average FT% sixty something. Average 3pt % thirty something.

The addition of the 3pt shot greatly enhanced the strategy of fouling at the end of a game. The most that your team can give up is two points, but you will have a chance for 3 at the other end.

Prior to the three point shot a team could be assured of maintaining its lead if it made its FTs. Now the team could make ALL of its FTs and see the opponent erase its lead with a few treys.

The risk/reward ratio is clearly better today than in the past.
[/B][/QUOTE]

You're right Nevada, the risk-reward is much better, but in my experience reffing, coaching, and playing if you hit you're FTs down the stretch it becomes tougher and tougher to hit that 3 because the defense is sometimes conceeding the 2 to defend the 3...

Of course I've never reffed, coached, or played against J.J. Redick ;)

People clamoring for a rule change to eliminate fouling at the end of games and forcing the team with the lead to hit their foul shots reminds me of bean counters in a business. They have no understanding of the strategy of the game (or business), they just think that by changing the way things are done will improve the situation (either more entertaining and fair, or profitable)

Legitimate attempts at a steal with no concern for getting a foul have been around since before I was born! Practice your foul shots---now THERE'S a novel idea---- and win the game.

First of all, I don't think it is a disadvantage to put a team on the line. Every team will try to put the ball in the hands of its best freethrow shooter at the end of games, right? It still gives the players the opportunity to decide the outcome of the game, and as a bonus, nobody gets hurt!

But maybe, I just missed a couple of words here ;-) :
If a contact occurs that could be called as a foul, call it regadless of advantage/disadvantage, so it is not necessary to repeat contact with higher intensity.

If you are going to call an intentional foul when the coach yells "Foul!", how about when the coach yells "Red" and the player fouls. This could mean the same thing.

Strategic fouling is part of the game, and there is nothing wrong with it. If you eliminate strategic fouling, then the game is over with 35 seconds left.

Why fix what ain't broke?

So what about when the team breaks the huddle after a time-out, and a player runs to you and says, "We're going to try to foul." Personally, I treat it the same way as if a player said, "We're going to try to travel." I'll call it when I have it, and if they're playing the ball, give them the benefit of the doubt. Still, I'd rather not have them tell me. Cripes, seven seconds left, down by one, everyone in the gym already knows that they're going to try to foul!

I agree with Bob. Also, coaches want their players to try to get a steal before they intentionally foul. Therefore, the "reach" for the ball may be a legitimate attempt to steal it, not the intentional foul.

You're right Nevada, the risk-reward is much better, but in my experience reffing, coaching, and playing if you hit you're FTs down the stretch it becomes tougher and tougher to hit that 3 because the defense is sometimes conceeding the 2 to defend the 3...

Of course I've never reffed, coached, or played against J.J. Redick ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

When I was coaching, we'd foul (going for the ball, of course) if we had a 3-pt lead and under 10 seconds left in the period. I won several games that way. I'd rather have them shoot a FT or two then have a lucky three tie us. In order to tie us in the FT situation, they have to: make 1, miss the second, get their own rebound, make a basket. This is not nearly as easy as throwing up a three. Also, with it being under 10 seconds, we don't have to get the ball across half-court if we get the rebound. And now, you have them outnumbered in the lane by 2-1. I've seen major colleges lose big-time NCAA games and lose big-time bucks by missing the next round because they let a team get a three to tie at the end of the period. Most coaches don't have the guts to foul.

B. Late in the game. Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped. There is widespread belief that it works or it wouldn’t be coached.
Here is the POE directly from the NFHS website.

There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. “Going for the ball” is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely, a coach who yells, “Foul!” instructions to his or her team does not mean the ensuing foul is “automatically” an intentional foul — even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials, players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a legitimate coaching strategy.

With that, officials must have the courage to enforce the intentional foul rule. Far too often, officials do not whistle fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria. Officiating philosophies should not change because of the time remaining in the game or the score differential. The correct call should be made — not the popular one.

Indeed.

That being said, as it happens, I was discussing this very subject with my partner yesterday, comparing 'code words'. His was 'Chinese'! No, I don't know why.

I used to use 'Get the ball'. My guys needed reminding on technique, and I always felt I was putting our actions in the best possible light vis-a-vis the officials.

Let's use your numbers to dig into this: 60% FT success and 30% three point success.

As an example let's say B fouls A five times in exchange for five 3 point attempts. (Fair amount, no?)

Using your numbers on average A will earn 6 points (.6 X 10 possible) and B will earn 5 points (.3 X 15 possible).

This results in A increasing their lead by 1 point on average.

Where's the advantage again?

Could not agree more... It's also about "rewarding" good play, in a way. A skillful player will try to get the ball and in the process he/she may commit a foul. On the other side of the spectrum is a brainless two-legged monster who will almost tackle the nearest opposition player, and who will have to be punished for this with "the Capital X", as someone has called it.

It's not any different than a football team taking a delay of game penalty to get punting room, or stepping out of bounds through their endzone when their punter is backed up and time is getting short on their 11 point lead. Or an intentional walk in baseball.