The Official Forum - NFHS Rules Interpretations - Interntional Foul on the Offense

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - NFHS Rules Interpretations - Interntional Foul on the Offense (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/28909-nfhs-rules-interpretations-interntional-foul-offense.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesse James

One point game, team B that's behind tries to deny the inbound to the only good ballhandler A has. A sets screens to get their ball-handler open, and B, intent on not letting A's ball handler get open, pushes through one of the screens.

Taking the POE literally, that's an automatic intentional foul, which is ludicrous.

Agree totally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) fouled while setting a screen without the ball being anywhere in the vicinity of the screen.

Why else would any defender foul a screener except to stop the clock?

disagree totally with this line of thinking. As I posted earlier:

B3 may push or run through a screen set by A4. Or B2 may be guarding A2 who makes a sudden cut to get open for the pass and B2 may instinctly clutch or reach out for A2. Those would be common fouls in my eyes unless B3's contact was severe or B2 grabbed A2's jersey.

[QUOTE=Camron Rust]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

No call in #1. A screener's purpose is to sacrifice their body (if necessary) to force the defender to take a longer path around.

No call in #2 unless the screen was not legal.

No call in #3. Again, the screen served it's purpose.

Foul in #4. The screenee proceeded right through the screen by use of contact that knocked the screener out of the way.

For number 1, 2, and 3, the assumption is that the screenee didn't see the screen in time to stop. If they saw the screen in time to stop or divert but still plowed into the screen, it would be a foul in most cases....not based on the advantage but to keep the game from getting too rough.

Agreed on 1, 2 and 4.

On 3, I think it's a HTBT. If the screenee falls on the screener becuase s/he continued to run through the screen, then it's a foul. If the screenee attempts to stop, but the "upper body momentum" causes the fall, then it's a no call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree completely. The intentional foul is meant to be called when someone is :
1) trying to get open for an in-bounds pass but a defender just wraps him up.

Agreed that this is an intentional foul, but only because of the "just wraps him up" -- that's an intentional foul at any point in the game. If B1 fouls A1 because B1 got to a position late, or "bumped the cutter", or held to stop A1 from using a screen, .... then it's a common foul.

Quote:

2) fouled while setting a screen without the ball being anywhere in the vicinity of the screen.

Why else would any defender foul a screener <b>except</b> to stop the clock?

Camron, you interpret the POE one way. I interpret it a completely different. We simply disagree.

Most screens during an imbound play are "without the ball being in the vicinity of the screen." The screens are designed to get a player open to receive a pass (and the player trying to get open might be the screener, if the defense switches). If the defense merely runs through the screen, or pushes the screener out of the way, then it's a common foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Really?

Fwiw, I disagree completely with Howard too then.

But.... who does Howard think that the throw-in intentional foul verbiage applies to then in that statement of the POE? What is his complete interpretation of what the NFHS rulesmakers are instructing us to do? What offensive players on a throw-in, other than screeners or players attempting to receive a throw-in,are the players that are being fouled that the FED says we must call those intentional fouls on?

What is Howard's interpretation of that statement in the POE, Juulie? How are intentional fouls on throw-ins supposed to be called, and who is the FED telling us to to call them on?

Iow, give us his full interpretation.

Let's draw a picture....

A1 with ball for throwin at baseline in backcourt. A2 & A3 nearby. A4 and A5 standing at FT line on other end of court.

Case 1: As A1 is looking to pass to A2, B5 shoves A5. Call? Intentional Foul. A5 was not involved in the play.
Case 2: As A1 is looking to pass to A2, B2 holds A2. Call? Common Foul. A2 was involved in the play.
Case 3: As A1 is looking to pass to A2 who is comming off a screen by A3, B2 pushes A3 out of the way to keep up with A2. Call? Common Foul. A3 was involved in the play.
Case 4: As A1 is looking to pass to A2 who is comming off a screen by A3, B2 bearhugs A3. Call? Intentional Foul. No play on the ball.
Case 5: As the ball is in the air to A2, B3 fouls A3 on the other side of the court. Intentional foul. Once the ball was in the air to A2 on the other side of the floor, A3 was no longer in the play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Let's draw a picture....

A1 with ball for throwin at baseline in backcourt. A2 & A3 nearby. A4 and A5 standing at FT line on other end of court.

Case 1: As A1 is looking to pass to A2, B5 shoves A5. Call? Intentional Foul. A5 was not involved in the play.
Case 2: As A1 is looking to pass to A2, B2 holds A2. Call? Common Foul. A2 was involved in the play.
Case 3: As A1 is looking to pass to A2 who is comming off a screen by A3, B2 pushes A3 out of the way to keep up with A2. Call? Common Foul. A3 was involved in the play.
Case 4: As A1 is looking to pass to A2 who is comming off a screen by A3, B2 bearhugs A3. Call? Intentional Foul. No play on the ball.
Case 5: As the ball is in the air to A2, B3 fouls A3 on the other side of the court. Intentional foul. Once the ball was in the air to A2 on the other side of the floor, A3 was no longer in the play.

Disagree with Case 2 and maybe case 3 if you judge the push was aimed to stop the clock.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree with Case 2 and maybe case 3 if you judge the push was aimed to stop the clock.

I agree with Mr Big Dawg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Disagree with Case 2 and maybe case 3 if you judge the push was aimed to stop the clock.

I agree with you if the aim is to stop the clock. That is where the judgement comes in. If that hold looks like the 10 prior holds you've called all game without them being intentional, I can not agree with making this one intentional just because the clock has less than 1:37 on it. If the player is merely grabbing the arm and hanging on for dear life for no other reason than just to hang on, call the intentional. Same thing on the screen.

If the fed wanted us to automatically call everything intentional when a player without the ball gets fouled they'd give us a specifc time and say the foul is intentional if the player doesn't currently have the ball. They didn't. They used the term not involved in the play....to include players without the ball that are still involved in the play....setting screens, cutting to get open for passes, etc.