NFHS Points of Emphasis

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Snake~eyes

No he's not saying that. He's saying that the name "intentional foul" doesn't make sense and that they should simply change the name. I don't see how you came to your conclusion.

Because he said fouls to stop the clock are done deliberately. I don't know about you but I've seen many "deliberate" fouls that are not called as intentional, and they should not be. For instance some fouls on lay-ups are *clearly* deliberate but definitely *not* intentional. In the same way that so-called strategic fouls should *not* be called intentional. The fed committee has already agreed that strategic fouls are part of the game, they just want the HS coaches to teach how to do this properly and they want the officials to call it when they are not done properly.

That's all in there the press release.

[Texas Aggie]

The committee did not say, "fouling to prevent a layup is an accepted coaching strategy." If they did, I might have taken the same issue with it as I did here. However, here the committee is emphasizing that intentional fouls should be called and its been a POI forever. Yet they are saying that intentional fouls are essentially acceptable, at least as a strategy. If that's not inconsistent, I don't know what is.

How do you "properly" commit a rules infraction where "properly" is defined by those who originally wrote the rules, intending on infractions being illegal and penalized? That's the issue I have here.

In football, they changed intentional grounding rules to create a balance of play. 15 years ago (or whenever), a QB couldn't spike the ball to stop the clock. Now they can. But it was a rule change. The football committee didn't say, "you can properly stop the clock by doing this, which is an acceptable coaching strategy, but it is still a rules infraction and will be penalized."

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The committee did not say, "fouling to prevent a layup is an accepted coaching strategy." If they did, I might have taken the same issue with it as I did here. However, here the committee is emphasizing that intentional fouls should be called and its been a POI forever. Yet they are saying that intentional fouls are essentially acceptable, at least as a strategy. If that's not inconsistent, I don't know what is.

How do you "properly" commit a rules infraction where "properly" is defined by those who originally wrote the rules, intending on infractions being illegal and penalized? That's the issue I have here.

In football, they changed intentional grounding rules to create a balance of play. 15 years ago (or whenever), a QB couldn't spike the ball to stop the clock. Now they can. But it was a rule change. The football committee didn't say, "you can properly stop the clock by doing this, which is an acceptable coaching strategy, but it is still a rules infraction and will be penalized."

So if I am reading you correctly, your problem is the use of the word "Intentional" and that fouling to stop the clock is done "intentionally", even tho (as Dan said) other fouls comitted during the game are also done "intentionally"...an Intentional foul is one which is a non-basketball play, a foul away from the ball to stop the clock, or one where the contact is severe, etc...a foul on the ball handler, making an attempt on the ball, may be done on purpose, but it does not fit the requirements of Intentional...and the use of a foul late in the game to stop the clock has been around forever.

I guess I really am not understanding why you are so bent about this one, TexasAggie...

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I guess I really am not understanding why you are so bent about this one, TexasAggie...

Me too.

The committee has laid out exactly how to call the end-of-game foul.

As for the foul on the layup - the reason the committee doesn't need to clarify is because there's little doubt as to how this call should be made.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

The committee did not say, "fouling to prevent a layup is an accepted coaching strategy." If they did, I might have taken the same issue with it as I did here. However, here the committee is emphasizing that intentional fouls should be called and its been a POI forever. Yet they are saying that intentional fouls are essentially acceptable, at least as a strategy. If that's not inconsistent, I don't know what is.

I think it's like that old judicial opinion about obscenity, we can't define an intentional foul, but we know it when we see one.

[gsf23]

How to foul at the end of the game is very coachable. Every year that I have coached, about once a week for about 15 minutes I've had my team practice how to foul at the end of a game.

Basically, I tell them to just use poor defensive technique. You use bad technique and you are going to foul. So, instead of keeping the feet active, hands active and not reaching, keep the offensive player in front and the such, I just tell them go ahead and slap at the ball, slow those feet up and if the guy gets by you slap at the ball again. You play defense like that and the result is going to be either a steal or a foul. Your still playing defense and trying to get a steal, but your are just playing technically poor defense.

As far as the verbiage, I don't know how else you can word it other than fouling to stop the clock.