|
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
If that was not their intent, then it is poorly worded. In fact it's poorly worded anyway. |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I'll also e-mail Howard and see what he says. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
See my response to Bob. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Here it is, word for word:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
I agree with what Dan is saying. It's kinda what I've been trying to say. |
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. |
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Just agreeing with something you said. |
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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
|
[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 |
[QUOTE=ronny mulkey]
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=bob jenkins]
Quote:
At one of our State Clinics an example was given where the screener was smallish and the screenee was large and moving rapidly. The resulting collision was to be ruled incidental if the screenee stopped or ATTEMPTED to stop. However, I see it primarily called using your criteria. I remain confused.:confused: |
[QUOTE=ronny mulkey]
Quote:
Iow, it's what the player being screened does <b>after</b> the contact that determines whether it's a foul or incidental contact. If they continue trying to go <b>through</b> the screen <b>after</b> the contact, then it's a foul. If they stop and have to go <b>around</b> the screener, then the screener has done their job and it's incidental contact. That's always a judgment call. Make any more sense now, Ron? |
[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]
Quote:
You always make sense to me BUT I am hung up on the verbage that allows severe contact and displacement which makes these following plays hard to judge. Assume the screenee did not lower shoulder or push through: 1. Screener is knocked down and screenee is standing and stopped. They go around the screener. 2. Screener is knocked down and screenee falls down beside screener, gets up and goes around screener. 3. screener is knocked down, screenee goes down on top of screener, rolls clear, gets up and goes around screener. 4. screener is knocked down, screenee STUMBLES over screener and keeps going. Mulk |
[quote=ronny mulkey]
Quote:
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. |
[QUOTE=Camron Rust]
Quote:
The way that the FED explained it in a hand-out many years ago was that you don't want to penalize the player being screened twice. The player is penalized initially through a good, legal screen by being taken out of the play. That is the purpose of the screen, and the purpose was met. If you call the foul on top of that, then it's double jeopardy. If the player <b>isn't</b> taken out of the play--i.e. by forcing their way <b>through</b> the screen-- then they gained an illegal advantage through that contact and being called for the foul now will negate that illegal advantage. |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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 <b>except</b> to stop the clock? Camron, you interpret the POE one way. I interpret it a completely different. We simply disagree. |
Quote:
Taking the POE literally, that's an automatic intentional foul, which is ludicrous. |
Quote:
Quote:
If that screen is being set to free up a player to possibly receive the ball, it is part of the play. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
What he said. |
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. |
Quote:
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 <b>must</b> 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 <b>his</b> full interpretation. |
Quote:
Part of 10-6-3 ... "In cases of screens outside the visual field, the opponent may make inadvertent contact with the screener and if the opponent is running rapidly, the contact may be severe. Such a case is to be ruled as incidental contact provided the opponent stops or attempts to stop on contact and moves around the screen, and provided the screener is not displaced if he/she has the ball." |
Quote:
Of course, I'm not the NFHS interpreter for the state of Oregon. :eek: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Camron Rust]
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
A1 with ball for throwin at baseline in backcourt. A2 & A3 nearby. A4 and A5 standing at FT line on other end of court.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:55am. |