NFHS Rules Interpretations - Interntional Foul on the Offense

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Well, that makes more sense to me, but the wording I used is right out of your earlier explanation. The question, it seems to me, is whether the items in the parentheses are examples of players being involved in the play, or not being involved in the play. If you're saying you asked someone that specfic question, and they said that the items are examples of not being involved in the play, then well, I don't agree with that, but oh, well. But I'd be interested in knowing who it was, and on what basis that interp is reached.

Geeze, I hate to say this after all the fun that I've made of IAABO in the past, but I asked a pretty well-known IAABO rules interpreter who doesn't want his name used...ever. It wasn't Chuck either. I have the utmost respect for this gentlemen's rules acumen.....as I also do for Chuck's...but that certainly doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. We all are sometimes. His interpretation, as well as mine, was that the items in the parentheses are examples of players that are not involved in the play....and that not being involved in the play meant that they didn't have the ball and weren't about to receive the ball. They might be "attempting to receive a pass" by trying to get open,but they aren't actually in the act of receiving the pass.

[Dan_ref]

Here it is, word for word:

4. Intentional Fouls
The committee continues to be concerned about how games end. While there has been some improvement in the application of the rule, there is still need for further understanding and enforcement. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, 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 solely 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.

Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. 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.

Additionally, in throw-in situations, fouling a player that is not involved in the play in any way (setting a screen, attempting to receive the in-bound pass, etc.) must be deemed intentional. Far too often, officials do not call fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria.

IMO they could have eliminated the entire last paragraph and been much clearer. But let's take a step back - what are they getting at? A few years ago the fed, in their infinite wisdom, declared that strategic fouls are NOT legal. If a coach or player yelled "foul 'em" near the end of the game that was intentional. Interpreters even told coaches to invent code words for "foul 'em", and the smart ones did. And btw the smart officials ignored this nonsense.

A year or 2 later the fed decided - on second thought - that strategic fouls ARE legal and a legitimate part of the game. But they had to be done right. Now they are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to distill down the notion of a correctly executed strategic fouls into as few words as possible.

The play the fed is talking about here is essentially when B1 wraps his arms around A1 and starts screaming "hey ref! ref!! Lookatme!!!" while coach B starts jumping up & down pointing at his player to make sure you see it before the throw-in is completed and the clock starts. IOW fouls meant to intentionally stop the clock or keep it from starting that are even obvious to the blind guy out in the hallway selling popcorn.

This of course differs from strategic fouls, which are NONobvious fouls meant to stop the clock or keep it from starting....cough cough...

It's a fine line, but that's why they pay us the big bucks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Here it is, word for word:



IMO they could have eliminated the entire last paragraph and been much clearer. But let's take a step back - what are they getting at? A few years ago the fed, in their infinite wisdom, declared that strategic fouls are NOT legal. If a coach or player yelled "foul 'em" near the end of the game that was intentional. Interpreters even told coaches to invent code words for "foul 'em", and the smart ones did. And btw the smart officials ignored this nonsense.

A year or 2 later the fed decided - on second thought - that strategic fouls ARE legal and a legitimate part of the game. But they had to be done right. Now they are twisting themselves into pretzels trying to distill down the notion of a correctly executed strategic fouls into as few words as possible.

The play the fed is talking about here is essentially when B1 wraps his arms around A1 and starts screaming "hey ref! ref!! Lookatme!!!" while coach B starts jumping up & down pointing at his player to make sure you see it before the throw-in is completed and the clock starts. IOW fouls meant to intentionally stop the clock or keep it from starting that are even obvious to the blind guy out in the hallway selling popcorn.

This of course differs from strategic fouls, which are NONobvious fouls meant to stop the clock or keep it from starting....cough cough...

It's a fine line, but that's why they pay us the big bucks.

I understand what Dan is saying.

I agree with what Dan is saying. It's kinda what I've been trying to say.

[Jimgolf]

I understand what each of you are saying. However, it is clear that the FED ruling is confusing at best.

A player setting a screen is most defintely involved in the play. No possible interpretation could conclude that a person setting a screen is not in the play. A player receiving a pass is also in the play. If you think otherwise, then you will interpret the ruling differently.

Think of A1 setting a blind screen without time and distance where B1 runs into him. If we go by this interpretation, we must call an intentional foul on B1, when in reality this is a personal foul on A1.

By extension, if proper time and distance have been given, then this would be a personal foul on B1, not an intentional foul.

However, if A2 is just standing around, and B1 runs into him, this has to be an intentional foul, according to this ruling.

At least that's how I read it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

I understand what each of you are saying. However, it is clear that the FED ruling is confusing at best.

A player setting a screen is most defintely involved in the play. No possible interpretation could conclude that a person setting a screen is not in the play. A player receiving a pass is also in the play. If you think otherwise, then you will interpret the ruling differently.

Think of A1 setting a blind screen without time and distance where B1 runs into him. If we go by this interpretation, we must call an intentional foul on B1, when in reality this is a personal foul on A1.

By extension, if proper time and distance have been given, then this would be a personal foul on B1, not an intentional foul.

However, if A2 is just standing around, and B1 runs into him, this has to be an intentional foul, according to this ruling.

At least that's how I read it.

I agree that the ruling is badly worded. I disagree with your extrapolations, though. I can't see how you'd ever get an intentional foul on B1 if A1 didn't give time and distance, even by the bad wording of hte rule.

I also agree with what Dan said about the intent of the rule, but I still think the Fed needs to address the wording, even though it's only a one year thing. I just don't understand why they can't shop their drafts around so that wording problems like this get fixed before the final printing. So frustrating!

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

Think of A1 setting a blind screen without time and distance where B1 runs into him.

I don't think that's a very good example, but I see where you're going. Here's a better example.

A1 has the ball OOB for the throw-in. A2, guarded by B2, moves to receive the throw-in pass. In trying to set a screen, A3 does not give B2 sufficient time and distance and contact results between A3 and B2.

If we use JR's interpretation, this is an intentional foul on A3. B2 did not have the ball and was not about to receive it. This cannot possibly be the intent of the POE. The only reasonable reading of the POE is that the players mentioned in the parenthetical examples are involved in the play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Just for the record, I'm not an interpreter, and I"m not trying to be one, BNR. I'm questioning JR to understand what he's saying and on what he's basing that, but I have no intention of forwarding an interp of my own. So please don't quote me as an authority!!

Don't worry Juulie, I would never quote anybody on this site as an authority.

Just agreeing with something you said.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Geeze, I hate to say this after all the fun that I've made of IAABO in the past, but I asked a pretty well-known IAABO rules interpreter who doesn't want his name used...ever. It wasn't Chuck either. I have the utmost respect for this gentlemen's rules acumen.....as I also do for Chuck's...but that certainly doesn't mean that he can't be wrong. We all are sometimes. His interpretation, as well as mine, was that the items in the parentheses are examples of players that are not involved in the play....and that not being involved in the play meant that they didn't have the ball and weren't about to receive the ball. They might be "attempting to receive a pass" by trying to get open,but they aren't actually in the act of receiving the pass.

Exactly. I didn't say it was well written or that it wasn't poorly worded. But the info within the parenthesis is refering to the player being fouled, not the player doing the fouling. It's that simple.

Some of you guys and gal are making this entirely too complicated.

You've been officials long enough to know how the Fed words these things and that they can word it poorly with little effort.

I stand by my original statement.

[ronny mulkey]

Think of A1 setting a blind screen without time and distance where B1 runs into him. If we go by this interpretation, we must call an intentional foul on B1, when in reality this is a personal foul on A1.

A good screen set by A1 outside of B1's vision is a foul on B1?

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

A good screen set by A1 outside of B1's vision is a foul on B1?

Read it again, Ronny.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Read it again, Ronny.

Chuck,

I quoted the wrong paragraph. Look at Jimgolf's next paragraph and you will understand my question (and it is a question) better.

It might be a question better left to another post so as not to confuse the intentional foul part of of the original post. But, I read that next paragraph of Jimgolf's to mean that if a "good blind screen" set by A1 results in A1 getting ran over, then it would be a foul on B1???

It really goes to the how much contact is allowed if the person setting the good blind screen is ran over.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

But, I read that next paragraph of Jimgolf's to mean that if a "good blind screen" set by A1 results in A1 getting ran over, then it would be a foul on B1???

It really goes to the how much contact is allowed if the person setting the good blind screen is ran over.

Ok, I see. Yeah, unless the "screenee" lowers a shoulder or continues to push after the initial contact, we can call that incidental contact, as long as the screener didn't have the ball.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Chuck,

I quoted the wrong paragraph. Look at Jimgolf's next paragraph and you will understand my question (and it is a question) better.

It might be a question better left to another post so as not to confuse the intentional foul part of of the original post. But, I read that next paragraph of Jimgolf's to mean that if a "good blind screen" set by A1 results in A1 getting ran over, then it would be a foul on B1???

It really goes to the how much contact is allowed if the person setting the good blind screen is ran over.

The assumption was that the contact would be sufficient to call a foul. I guess I can be confusing too. But I'm not being paid to write this stuff.

For those who think the words in the parentheses are refering to examples of players that are not involved in the play, who is involved in the play? Just the player inbounding the ball?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

...His interpretation, as well as mine, was that the items in the parentheses are examples of players that are not involved in the play....and that not being involved in the play meant that they didn't have the ball and weren't about to receive the ball. They might be "attempting to receive a pass" by trying to get open,but they aren't actually in the act of receiving the pass.

Quite respectfully, Jurrassic, You're wrong on this one.

The parenthetical element contains examples of being in the play. If setting a screen to get someone open or trying to get open to receive the pass is not part of the play, I don't know what is. Those are fundamental and direct actions of being involved in the play.

The intentional foul is meant to be called when someone is fouled that is

• not trying to get open for the inbounds pass
• not trying to set a screen to get someone else open for the inbounds pass

That is exactly what the posted situation says.

[ronny mulkey]

[QUOTE=Jimgolf]The assumption was that the contact would be sufficient to call a foul. I guess I can be confusing too. But I'm not being paid to write this stuff.

Jim,

Forget the intentional aspect for a minute and discuss the screen set outside a player's field of vision. I see this called differently all the time and I have been part of discussions that vary on this subject. What contact is '"sufficient" on a screen set outside the screenee's vision to call a foul?

Mulk