intentional foul
 

hi fellow stripes been awhile...doing varsity team camp and had a situation where I called an intentional (off ball) because the contact was excessive...we shot one/inbound poi...later I reread the defintion of an intentional and was left with the impression that any excessive contact had to be on ball only, that the only times you call off ball is if there is delay in game...when I read the case book one of the situations was pretty close to what I had...they chose to call it because it involved advantage of position...any comments?

An intentional foul can be anywhere on anybody. The provisions of the rule are to prevent a foul being given with the intention of preventing an obvious scoring chance or to stop the clock without an earnest play on the ball.

Examples of off-ball intentional fouls could be holding a player that was going participate in a fast break situation. It could be fouling to stop the clock. There are a number of ways intentional fouls can be off ball, just remember to read the provisions of the rule (at work don't have them with me)

Are you using NFHS rules? :confused:
If so, you should have shot TWO and inbounded at the spot nearest the foul instead of one and using the POI. In your case, the POI would be the spot nearest where the ball was located. So there is a difference.

Now to answer your question, the rules book says that excessive contact on the player with the ball shall be ruled intentional. It is implied that excessive contact away from the ball should also be treated in the same manner. You would certainly have a case of not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball! :)

Remember that while intentional fouls are not based SOLELY on the severity of the act, the severity certainly can be the determining factor.

Actually, I can't think of a case in which I wouldn't rule excessive contact away from the ball an intentional.

Wrong impression completely. Read POE #3 on intentional fouls on p.71 of the 2005-06 rule book. That gives a good description of what the FED's interpretation of an intentional foul really is.

thanks....
 

it was team camp...all fouls were 1 shot but score the appropiate points...will read poe...looked at case book and came away with the same view that you should call excessive contact away from the ball...thanks for the rapid responces

Using the intentional foul for "excessive contact" is a good call when a T seems unwarranted, but the kid was really reckless or hostile. I wish they'd find a different name for it. It's can hard to explain that while the contact wasn't intentional as in deliberate, the book gives us this call for excessive contact.

Not only does a T seem unwarranted, but calling one is definitely not allowed on a play involving contact during a live ball.

So unless the action is flagrant what else are you going to call?

I know, I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying I think it's a good thing to have an intermediate call between the basic foul and the flagrant. I just wish it were called something else. I mean why not an "excessive" foul, or "excessive contact" foul? If it had a different signal, and a different name, the penalty could still be the same, but there would be less explaining.

Ok, understood. Of course, if you had written it this way the first time, I would have grasped your meaning better. :)

You might be interested to know that there used to be a hard contact signal a few years back. That consisted of the intentional foul signal and then moving the X downward in front of the body. I don't know if this was ever an official NFHS signal, but I believe that it was an NCAA signal. Some of the folks who have been around for a while and worked NCAA ball in the past could fill you in better.

still confusedm(just not as much)
 

navadaref...in one of your posts your said it was implied that we could call an intentional if the excessive contact was off ball, reading the case book I think that case could be made for this, but in your other post you said that unless it was flagrant what else could you call...please explain...

what actually happened on this play is as follows...close game A1 is inbounding at division line, everyone else is in f/court... Im on base watching off ball...A inbounds and about the same time I have A3 in front of me trying to shake B2, in his attempt he (imo) inadvertantly elbows B2 across the chin and displaces B2. Meantime my partner has called B1 for a hold on A2 up by the division line...we come together to confer and agree that his foul took place first...dead ball...since A was not in the bonus we charge B1 with his foul and add to team count...now we deal with this intentional because of excessive contact...now is where it might of been handled different...i ruled intentional tech (deadball) so we shot one(team camp rules score appropiate points) and gave it at D/line because of tech...after the f/t and posession to B team it had no bearing on the outcome of the game,but could have. Rereading rule 4 concening intentional foul I came away from the rule on excessive contact clearly has to be onball...read the poe didnt change my mind but the case book has an example that could support this call...if it wasnt a tech but just a simultanous personal (4-19-10) then would you disreguard this call as suggested by 4-19-1 note. I would find it hard not find something for this infraction...just read the case on simultaneous foul (4.19.9) seems to fit just right any comments on how this should of been handled? .

Two-part post requiring a two-part answer:

Sure. Rainmaker and I were having a bit of a miscommunication. She was making the point that it is good have the intentional foul as middleground between a normal personal foul and violent act which results in a flagrant (whether it is personal or technical). We agree. In my response, I was making the point that I didn't care for her use of the term T instead of flagrant since the previous discussion was about contact during a live ball (which you have now stated was not the case in your clarification). My remark about what else are you going to call was made in the context of the official observing a play that involves excessive contact during a live ball. I merely was pointing out that if the contact does not rise to the level of a flagrant foul there is no other option BESIDES intentional. Hope that does it for you.


Now for your specific play.
What bothers me about the way you administered it is in red. If you truly felt that the elbow was inadvertent then I have a hard time agreeing with your decision to judge this an intentional foul. It is far more likely that it is just a common foul or even not a foul at all, but the need for game control in this situation may not allow you to have nothing for this action.
You are quite correct that a common foul would be ignored if it occurred during a dead ball and that is what you have if your partner's foul clearly happened first. So by the book, you did it right, IF the elbow contact truly warranted an intentional foul.

Personally, I would have used a shade of gray here, decided that both fouls happened at approximately the same time during the live ball, and gone with the simultaneous personal foul. Nice job looking this one up and grasping that it would be appropriate here.

Look at how the admin changes and how unobtrusive this call is versus going with the intentional technical. The SPF results in NO FTs to either team, one personal foul per player, and resuming from the POI, which is a throw-in by Team A near the division line becase that is where A2 had the ball at the time. Probably it is the same spot that A1 just had.

So essentially you put one foul up on the board for each side and administer the throw-in again. With the added benefit that you get to talk to A3 and B2 so that neither one is upset. That is what controlling the game is all about. You tell B2 something like, "yeah, I saw it and got it, so it's over now" then you let A3 know that you don't believe it was on purpose but that he needs to be more careful with his elbows/arms because he certainly wouldn't want to take one in the face either.

For what it's worth that's my advice.

1. JR, I believe that he is saying the sequence was:
a. administer throw-in, b. pass to A2, c. common foul by B1 against A2, d. elbow by A3 against B2 (which for some reason he felt had to be an intentional)
That sequence does mean that the elbow happened during a dead ball, so he enforced the T.

2. I agree with you. See my other post.

JR, I believe Nevada's correct and here's why. I think you mis-read or misunderstood the actual sequence. When Clover clarified the situation, he wrote:

From what you wrote above, you seem to think that they decided that the elbow by A3 was first. But that's not actually what they decided. The hold near midcourt occurred first. Then the elbow.

Yup, I was reading it wrong. I went back and deleted my (wrong) post.

thanks again...
 

i have showed this thread to a few of my fellow stripes and a coaching friend of mine...they all were surprised at the questions asked, the answers given and they all agreed that their take on intentional fouls is a little more clearer...once again this forum has proven invaluable...:D