NFHS Rules Interpretations - Interntional Foul on the Offense

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

JR, I gotta admit, that's not how I would interpret that sentence. Someone attempting to receive the in-bounds pass isn't involved in the play!?!? That seems weird to me. Do you have any other ruling or wording that would show your interpretation to be the correct one?

I'll also e-mail Howard and see what he says.

I didn't say that it related to someone attempting to receive a pass, and neither did the FED afaik. It relates to a defender fouling someone without the ball while the thrower still has the ball OOB, the way that I read it. If the pass was on the way, then the player in-bounds would be involved in the play. This FED POE applies to fouls on players that are not involved in the play.

See my response to Bob.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I didn't say that it related to someone attempting to receive a pass, and neither did the FED afaik. It relates to a defender fouling someone without the ball while the thrower still has the ball OOB, the way that I read it. If the pass was on the way, then the player in-bounds would be involved in the play. This FED POE applies to fouls on players that are not involved in the play.

See my response to Bob.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

At last, the voice of reason. Perhaps the sentence could have read: If a foul is committed against a player who is not involved in the play in some way, such as setting a screen or moving to try to receive a pass, it must be ruled intentional. In other words, don't grab and hold a player who is just standing there on the opposite end of the court without expecting the intentional foul to be called.
Would that not have been clearer?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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
I dLIST][*]not trying to get open for the inbounds pass[*]not trying to set a screen to get someone else open for the inbounds pass[/LIST]That is exactly what the posted situation says.

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.
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?

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

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

[Raymond]

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

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?
.

Why does a player foul the screener with 10 minutes left in a 10 point game? To get to the player they're supposed to be guarding. It is no more intentional in the last minute than in than 10 minutes earlier.

If that screen is being set to free up a player to possibly receive the ball, it is part of the play.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

The problem is not that we're interpreting it differently but in diametrically opposite meanings based on a poorly constructed sentence.

The POE is the counter to the Shaq-Attack....fouling the worst FT shooter on the floor no matter where they are....even when the throwin team is clearly trying to isolate them away from the play.

I agree that it could be read the way you suggest but that interpretation is simply illogical and inconsistent with all other publications on endgame intentional foul calling.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree that it could be read the way you suggest but that interpretation is simply illogical and inconsistent with all other publications on endgame intentional foul calling.

What he said.

[bob jenkins]

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.

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?

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.

[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.