Double intentional foul

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Why not?

The rules define double personal fouls and double technical fouls.

A personal foul might be intentional.

A technical foul might be intentional.

Speaking NFHS rules only, 4-19 defines all the various kinds of fouls. While an intentional foul is defined in terms of being a personal or technical foul, it is a different kind of foul altogether. It is the same situation for a player control foul; it is defined in terms of being a common foul, but is an altogether different type. Being different types of fouls, they even have their own penalties, seperate from common, personal or technical fouls.

Now the reason I bring up the analogy with the player control foul is that there are some well known rather distinctive cases in the case book that arise because a PC foul is not, in fact, just a common foul. Like the one where B1 fouls A1, then A1 plows into B2.

In the same way, an intentional foul is not, in fact, just a personal or technical foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

In the same way, an intentional foul is not, in fact, just a personal or technical foul.

What would you call if 2 opponents who pushed other at approximately the same time right after a shot went in, and you didn't feel that their actions were flagrant?

What would you call it if they did this during play, but 20 feet away from the ball.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What would you call if 2 opponents who pushed other at approximately the same time right after a shot went in, and you didn't feel that their actions were flagrant?

Whjat would you call it if they did this during play, but 20 feet away from the ball.

Very good questions. The first one I'd probably have a double technical. The second leaves me in a bit of a quandry. Perhaps just a double foul.

I can see the case for having a double intentional, but it goes against my current understanding that each of the types of fouls in 4-19 is a distinct type, and they don't combine to create new types.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Very good questions. The first one I'd probably have a double technical.

I can see the case for having a double intentional, but it goes against my current understanding that each of the types of fouls in 4-19 is a distinct type, and they don't combine to create new types.

Personal fouls and technical fouls are distinct types in 4-19, and they combine to create new types, don't they?

The NOTE from 4-19-1 reads "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter".

If you have a double technicals for contact fouls by opponents on each other after the ball is dead on a made basket, your two choices then would be a double intentional technical foul or a double flagrant technical foul. Make sense?

Still a moot point anyway, as long as you rule them a double technical foul or a double intentional technical foul, and also do the same for flagrant acts. The penalties are the same, so it's basically just semantics.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Personal fouls and technical fouls are distinct types in 4-19, and they combine to create new types, don't they?

The NOTE from 4-19-1 reads "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter".

If you have a double technicals for contact fouls by opponents on each other after the ball is dead on a made basket, your two choices then would be a double intentional technical foul or a double flagrant technical foul. Make sense?

Still a moot point anyway, as long as you rule them a double technical foul or a double intentional technical foul, and also do the same for flagrant acts. The penalties are the same, so it's basically just semantics.

Hmmm, plenty to think about here. For the first time, the notion of an intentional technical makes sense in HS rules to me now.

As for the two guys 20 feet from the ball going at it, I'm not sure I can see calling this a double intentional. How would this be different than two donkies going at it in the post. That's away from the ball too. Yet despite the definition of intentional foul, I think I can say that this would be universally called either a personal foul on one of the players, or a regular double foul on both.

Not that this negates your point, of course. Just saying

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Hmmm, plenty to think about here. For the first time, the notion of an intentional technical makes sense in HS rules to me now.

Good.
Here is a case book play to further illustrate JR's point.

4.19.5 SITUATION: A1 is fouled by B1. A1 subsequently pushes B1. RULING: If a foul is called on A1, it must be either an intentional or flagrant technical. If it is ruled flagrant, A1 must be disqualified. If A1's contact during a dead ball was neither intentional nor flagrant, it should have been ignored. (4-19-1 Note; 10-3-9)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

As for the two guys 20 feet from the ball going at it, I'm not sure I can see calling this a double intentional. How would this be different than two donkies going at it in the post. That's away from the ball too. Yet despite the definition of intentional foul, I think I can say that this would be universally called either a personal foul on one of the players, or a regular double foul on both.

You judge the actions of the players going at it off-ball exactly the same way that you normally judge a common personal foul vs. an intentional personal foul. If they're doing something like jockeying for position, then they're both fouling each other trying to make a "basketball" play of some kind, and you have a normal double personal foul. If instead they do something like giving each other a 2-handed push in the chest almost simultaneously or bang-bang, then you could call a double intentional personal foul. Those pushes aren't a basketball play imo.

Does that make any more sense now?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You judge the actions of the players going at it off-ball exactly the same way that you normally judge a common personal foul vs. an intentional personal foul. If they're doing something like jockeying for position, then they're both fouling each other trying to make a "basketball" play of some kind, and you have a normal double personal foul. If instead they do something like giving each other a 2-handed push in the chest almost simultaneously or bang-bang, then you could call a double intentional personal foul. Those pushes aren't a basketball play imo.

Does that make any more sense now?

Yep This has been a banner week for learning new lessons.