NFHS Rules Interpretations - Interntional Foul on the Offense
 

Sorry if you have already discussed this stuff... I haven't been on the site for awhile.

The NFHS Points of Emphasis... http://www.nfhs.org/web/2006/05/2006..._emphasis.aspx

Concerning Intentional Fouls, state:
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.

Does this mean we are being asked to call an intentional foul on the offense? I can believe some offensive team actions meeting the definition of intentional foul but has anyone done that, and what was the reaction of the coach/crowd?

Most of the offensive actions I can envision would just be called a foul - screener holds (foul, not intentional); reciever bangs into a stationary defender so he may get the pass (foul, not intentional); others.

When would I call an intentional foul on an offensive player during a throw-in? (Thereby, giving the defense two shots and the ball.)

I guess blatantly knocking the defensive player down... I would call intentional. Are there others?

I had a partner call an Intentional (but not International) Foul on a player who had the ball, was being double teamed, and threw an elbow that connected to one of the defenders. I did not see the play (2-man, I was trail far from the play) but that is what my partner explained to me.

You're misreading the statement.

"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."

The statement means fouling the PLAYER WHO IS setting a screen, attempting to receive the in-bound pass. etc.

If the person setting the screen were to set the screen but then wrap his arms around the person he was screening, that would be an intentional foul. Just as it would be an intentional foul for the defender to wrap his arms around a player trying to receive the throw-in pass.

I don't think so. It means fouling a player who is doing nothing must be called intentional. Fouling a player setting a screen is not a mandatory intentional foul, according to this statement.

If that was not their intent, then it is poorly worded. In fact it's poorly worded anyway.

?????

The wording means fouling a player that is not setting a screen and not attempting to receive the in-bounds pass and not etc. must be deemed intentional.

Conversely fouling a player that is setting a screen or attempting to receive the in-bounds pass or etc. may or may not be an intentional foul, but is not an automatic intentional foul.

Associative property. Oh wait, that's multiplication.

(also applies to logical not).

I deleted my post above because it says exactly what BktBallRef had already told you. It was just a duplicate.

That wording isn't the least bit hazy imo. It's from POE #4 in this year's rule book, and it's about as definitive as the FED could make it.

<i>"In throw-in situations, fouling a player that is <b>not</b> involved in the play in any way(<b>setting a screen</b>, attempting to receive the in-bounds pass, etc.) <b>must</b> be deemed <b>intentional</b>".</i>

A player setting a screen is just an example that they gave of a player that is not involved in the play. By "not involved", the FED simply means that the player does <b>not</b> have the ball. The NFHS rulesmakers say that it <b>is</b> intentional; you're saying that it <b>may</b> be intentional. Correct?

If you don't agree with the FED, which I'm sure is the case, may I suggest that you run it by your local rules interpreter to get his opinion.

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 think you're mis-reading the sentence (or, more accurately, I think the FED mis-worded the sentence). I think they are giving examples of players who *are* involved in the play and the foul should *not* be intentional (absent other criteria).

Not really. I asked for feedback from another source and that's the way that they read and interpreted it too. If a defender fouls someone out of the play on a throw-in( iow a player without the ball and also not about to receive the ball), an intentional foul should be called. They're talking about those type of fouls being committed while the thrower still has the ball in his hands. The rationale is that the "going for the ball" part is not a factor if there is no ball for the defender to go for.

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 <b>would</b> be involved in the play. This FED POE applies to fouls on players that are <b>not</b> 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.

I gotta go with Bob, Juulie, JimGolf, et al on this one. My interpretation of the POE is that the plays cited (setting a screen; attempting to receive the pass) are examples of players who ARE involved in the play.

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.

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!!