NFHS Rules Interpretations - Interntional Foul on the Offense

[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.

[rainmaker]

Just for the record...

I contacted Howard Mayo, who is our assignor here in Portland, OR, but more importantly, is the official NFHS rules interpreter for the state of Oregon, and has also been on the rules committee several years in the past.

He said that the examples in the parentheses were of players who were involved in the play.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Just for the record...

I contacted Howard Mayo, who is our assignor here in Portland, OR, but more importantly, is the official NFHS rules interpreter for the state of Oregon, and has also been on the rules committee several years in the past.

He said that the examples in the parentheses were of players who were involved in the play.

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Just for the record...
He said that the examples in the parentheses were of players who were involved in the play.

Just for the record, I said that about 40 posts ago!

Of course, I'm not the NFHS interpreter for the state of Oregon.

[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.