Why won't they call the intentional?
 

I just don't understand this reluctance to call an intentional foul. It seems that there are quite a few officials out there who just won't call one.

I was stunned when the official in the Louisville/Marquette game didn't call one with 30 seconds left. Louisville trailed by six and was putting Marquette on the line. However, the foul that was made consisted of the Louisville player grabbing the back of the Marquette player's jersey with two hands as he crossed the division line! The action was so obvious that even the player on the receiving end turned around and gave the official the intentional foul signal. It seems that we have now reached the point where the players and coaches have become educated enough about this matter that that call is actually expected. Failing to reinforce this is an unfortunate missed opportunity.

I agree. Towards the end of a game when intentionally fouling the opponents is likely to occur, there should at least be some semblance of trying to play the ball. In the case you describe the foul was clearly intentional and should be called. Not calling it gives an unfair advantage to the fouling team.

I think the perception that it only occurs in the final minute by a team trailing is wrong as well. I called one on a 2 handed jersey pull a few games ago and another when a player shoved a shooter underneath in the hip with one hand. The 'defender' never left her feet or tried to make a defensive play. Neither of these calls were in the final minute.

From the beginning to the end of a game, when does a player accidentally have a fist full of jersey?

Amen!

It <b>used</b> to be an automatic intentional foul call under both NCAA and NFHS rules.

The POE written by the FED in the 2000-01 rulebook was never rescinded as far as I know----<i>Acts that <b>must</b> be deemed intentional include grabbing/holding a player by the jersey in order to impede their progress".</i>

But........:rolleyes:

I think in general officials are afraid to pull the trigger to make this call. Not sure why, but I have noticed in the last 3 seasons I have called almost all the intentional fouls in my games when they took place. I had a game where it happened to be on TV and there was a call during a transition period and in my opinion a pretty obvious intentional foul, but it was not called. I was so far away and second on the whistle so I let my partner take it. I was asked later by one of my mentors was I thinking intentional and in his opinion based on what he saw it was a clear intentional foul. I just think guys are afraid they might play a bigger role in a game than they want to. So you do not get a lot of intentional foul calls as a result.

Peace

I agree, the intentional foul (and sometimes the Technical) is not used properly. I don't think we should ever be afraid to call the intentional fouls if we see them. But I often look at games and se fouls I belive should be intentional. Swedish referees are usually very good at calling the holding of jerseys. Mainly becuse we were told to call this harder a few years ago.

Yeah, I don't understand the reluctance to call the IF either. Easpecially when you know that they are fouling to stop the clock and the player does something that is obviously not making a play on the basketball. I have yet to understand why this call is so "taboo".

Intentional. Does it have equal "weight" if
1) defensive player is aggressive when opponent trying to score
2) defensive player wants to stop the clock aginst an opponent that wants it running.

The rules are clear. The determination is the extent the defender goes/does not go - for the ball

This is a very good question and here is your answer. The payload for calling this is too great! It puts the official in the I will determine this game if I make that call, which I don't think is that bad at this point in time in the game. I'm sure there are officials that will say they will call it each and everytime they see it. However, in actual practice, in reality, you see a lot of officials not step up that high.

Remember the reason why they changed the swinging the elbows to just a violation instead of a TF a few years ago. Because none of the officials was calling it because of the heavy payload at the end, technical foul when there was no contact. They downgraded it to a violation and the whole thing stopped, IMO. I mean you don't even see it happen that much in the games anymore.

I think the same thing needs to happen here, but that is jmo. I think intentional fouls should be kept to excessive contact and not minor, I'm trying to stop the clock type of fouls. This puts too much of the onus on the official and if I got a very good game, I'm waiting on the malicious act, not the I'm trying to stop the clock foul. All in all, the payload should be downgraded to just a foul and if the official deems it to be excessive and unnecessary, than it can be upgraded to intentional, 2 shots and the ball back. I am seeing players today hold the jerseys on rebounds, post-up moves, etc. I call it each and everytime I see it, but I don't call it intentional foul. I just call it a hold. Again, I am interpreting the intentional to mean something more on the excessive malicious act.

I have a bigger issue with officials not willing to call the excessive contact an intentional foul on the shooter on the fastbreak. Again, that's just my opinion.

I will put this thought out for discussion.

It's called this way because it is the way the coaches at the D-1 level want it called.

The Tenn/OSU crew made this call in the 1st half. Thad Matta of OSU went crazy over the call but I thought it was a great call.

From the NCAA rulebook--Appendix III-Officiating Guidelines:
-Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:
(a) any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or player is an intentional personal foul.
(d) grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an intentional personal foul.

The rules certainly support the grabbing of a shirt as <b>always</b> being an intentional personal foul. In real life though.......

The thing I struggle with is when to go intentional on a layup. Clearly any contact in the back here is intentional. But what I have trouble with is the strong down chop from the side that gets the forearms. The action is reasonable close to the ball and has a chance to dislodge it but doesn't really seem designed to do so, rather it seems designed just to stop the shot. Additionally this tends to be very forceful which raises the question what is excessive force?

I know this happened in the OSU/Wisconsin game. Did it happen in the Tennessee game as well?

I have a 3-point system that I use on a break-away layup.

1.) Is it a break away layup? That is the dribble has unobstructed path to the basket, no defender in front.

2.) Hard foul from behind, designed only to stop the shot.

3.) Shooter involuntarily knocked to the floor, and is very slow to get up. Possibly hurt.

Other intangibles that are not necessary absolute or;
a.) bigger defender smaller shooter. This excessive contact is much more likely to hurt the smaller player.
b.) Any hard contact to the face on a break-away layup. Page taken from the NBA.
c.) retaliation by the defender for losing the ball and giving up easy play.

Last, coaches teach that if you are going to foul here, make sure the guy doesn't make the shot. This makes the foul that much harder. It is being taught, it is the objective of the defender. Coaches will argue (talk out both sides of there mouth) that my player went for the ball. Most officials will yield to this interpretation and not call it intentional. Not me, if it meets my criteria above. Intentional Foul everytime! And I then tell the coach what he would tell me if it was his player on the floor, protect the shooter!

Yep, on a fast break in the 1st half.

I don't like your system. :(
By #3 are you saying that you only call an intentional foul when the offended player is hurt? That's ridiculous.

No, all 3 needs to be present. It is not 1 or 2, or 2 or 3, it is all 3 together. The player hitting the floor involuntarily satisfies #3. If I have a true on all these conditions, I have an intentional foul on a breakaway layup. I am not saying this is the "ONLY" condition in which you can have an I/F, or the only condition on a breakaway layup. Defender can push the player in the hip while airborne, shoving him into the wall. I/F in my book.

What if he just shoves him from behind (a clear foul which cause the player to miss the shot), but the shooter is able to land without a problem?

Just speaking for my local area:

When I started HS officiating 10 years ago, the D-1 officials in our local HS association pretty much ran the show. Their philosophy was to ignore coaches unless they were screaming profanities in your face and to not call an intentional foul unless someone was raped and pillaged. It put a lot of pressure on our younger officials to call it the same way. As a result, we managed coaches poorly and rarely called a much-deserved intentional foul.

As the years have gone by, a lot of that "older guard" is gone. The leaders in our group (still some D-1 officials in that group) no longer share those extreme philosophies. I think our local group now manages coaches as well as anyone in the state and for the most part, I think we call intentional fouls when appropriate.

Nevada,
Remember, when you're dealing with off-season college football players, the expectations are a little different.

.....Their philosophy was to ignore coaches unless they were screaming profanities in your face and to not call an intentional foul unless someone was raped and pillaged.


I guess a question is why they wanted to do it this way.

Any official calling the foul will also make the intentional foul signal <b>immediately</b>. Are you really saying that <b>MOST</b> officials would listen to a coach argue after the intentional foul call is made and signalled, and then <b>MOST</b> officials would <b>change</b> their call because of the coach's argument?

That's just patently ridiculous, JMO. It just doesn't happen. The only officials that would ever change their intentional foul call because of a coach's arguments are the ones that work beside you in your rec leagues. :rolleyes:

:D So.......remember folks, if the defender <b>voluntarily</b> knocks the shooter to the floor, it's <b>not</b> an intentional foul.

Heckuva system you got there, JMO. Good luck with that. :D

Old School, one reason (IMO) is this isn't a normal personal foul is because........................it isn't a normal personal foul. :D Furthermore, some of these intentional fouls can lead to fights if not called properly.

You have some of the weirdest philosophies I have ever heard. You are doing a disservice to the game of basketball. If you have one, tell your mentor I said the same thing about her. :D

It is now obvious to me that he is making this stuff up as he goes. He says that he has a 3-point system, but then he changes the wording to it shortly after posting it. Look at my post #18 to see how he originally worded criterion #3. The kid didn't just have to be "knocked to the floor", he had to be hurt!

No, I went back and adjusted the wording to fit my meaning better. It's a nice feature of the board. The point is still the same, the only people that don't get it or the ones that want to make fun of it, or looking for mistakes. I think the general populous understands what I'm trying to say. The rest of you act like children in need of a, I gotcha fix! To you, my saying from now on will be whatever....!!!

To error is human, to constantly ridicule is childish, and to that I say, whatever...

Congratulations, you have convinced me in just the past few hours that you are not a real official. Before I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now I will join the others on here who previously knew that you are a poser.

I will never again reply to one of your posts.

Way back in the early days of football they had "mass momentum" plays. Of course, those same plays sometimes maimed and killed people and nearly got the game banned.

But the idea of mass momentum, I think, comes into play here. The mass of the momentum is away from calling IFs. IOW, more people don't call those IFs simply because more people don't call them IFs. If more people did, more people would. Very few people want to be "that guy" who calls all the IFs when nobody else does. A few brave souls with conviction will call them, the rest will not. I don't know how we change this. The NFHS has made this a POE the past 2 years, but I don't see much change. :(

Old Tool's idea of not calling an intentional foul unless someone gets pounded into the floor and gets their head split open is a great idea! In fact, let's change the criteria on all fouls to match a T-shirt my son used to wear. It had a picture of a player being loaded into an ambulance on a gurney. The lettering on the shirt read, "NO RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY - NO FOUL". :eek:

Your friend Dave told me he's got a new one on order: "No Autopsy -- No Foul".

I'm all for calling intentional fouls in the appropriate setting, and I've done it plenty of times. But I saw one called last night that clearly was not that was called such, and that's what makes it difficult. The big problem is to teach balance.

What did the official who called the intentional foul say when you asked him/her about it, Juulie?

Yup, sure you did. Two and a half hours later. Right after reading NevadaRef's and a few other's posts. You just needed a little time for reflection. Yup, we'll buy that.:D

I wonder if he takes an eraser to the scorebook at halftime to adjust fouls that really shouldn't have been fouls. Of course, JMO/OS is not a rec league official. He is a rec league PLAYER.

Worse - rec league assistant coach, or as he would say, an assistance coach. :p

Because that was the philosophy of the D-1 assignor that they worked for.

That's what I've seen and I'd agree. Now the next question is why do the D-1 assignors want the issue of calling intentional fouls handled the way it is being called?

This is a interesting concept. One that I think holds some merit. Another poster talked about balance. A 3rd factor to add to this is interpretation. I tried coming up with this 3-point system to make it easier for me to determine if I have an I/F, simply because I know what the objective of the defender is. Again it is being taught. Several years ago, after calling an I/F coach came up to me after the game and said, we teach our kids to foul hard in a situation like that. I told the coach I rest my case. However, to your point of not enough officials are calling it. I think another consensus is that if I (the official) call it and I'm wrong. The way these plays are scrutinized after the fact, especially at the state playoff level. You are ostracized by the assigners if you are wrong. In other words you had better be right because if you're not, you won't work any state playoff's games next year. Better to lean the other way so I can continue to work. I have recently notice that after I call an I/F at the school I gave you an example above. I have not been back to that school since. What does that tell you? I don’t know if that’s random of the draw or if the school actually voiced a concern to my assigner.

IMO, if you have a break-away wide open to the basket lay-up and a closing defender, the flag I/F should raise in your mind right then and there. Doesn’t mean you're going to have one but the potential exists, much like the atmosphere before a tornado. Doesn't mean it's going to be a tornado but the conditions exists and you should prepare yourself. Then you have a hard foul (intent), not trying to play defense but prevent a player from scoring a easy bucket, and finally the player being knocked to the floor involuntarily. If you got those 3 things, you should have an I/F. I've taken the guess work out of it. Add to this, a hit to the face, automatic on a fast breakaway layup, imo. Add another ingredient, team is up by 30 points.

We are officials to the game of basketball. That means we are suppose to uphold the integrity of the game. If a player steals the ball and has a wide open breakaway layup. That player should be able to go in and complete the play without any undue roughness and head on back down to play defense. This situation is not an automatic pass to go foul the player as hard as you can which is what we are allowing by not calling this an I/F. Somewhere down the line in all of this, the spirit of fair play has been compromised by the coaches that, in this particular situation, it is okay to go knock the crap out of the player because (A) most officials won’t call it and (B) we disguised this tactic by saying we're going for the ball and trying to prevent the easy score. Why stop doing it from a coaches prospective. We already know that 75% of the referees won’t call it because they are either too afraid thinking of the norm, don’t know the rules, and the others don’t want to get ostracized if they do.

It is up to us the officials to protect the integrity of the game and most of all, protect the safety of the players. I vote this is not a situation where we will allow undue roughness. I vote that any tactic deployed to stop an easy bucket by fouling the player unnecessary hard should be an I/F. Why wait until somebody gets seriously hurt before doing something about it, aka, the American way. Coaches can’t have it both ways, it’s an intentional foul when it’s my shooter, it’s just a hard foul, no big deal if it’s my defender. I am standing up for the game of bb and in my games this will be an I/F. If it gets me more time on the sidelines watching, then so be it, but at least I took a stand and my stand is for the betterment of the game.

Protect the shooter.

I thought this would be some fun/interesting reading until I realized it would be like reading a text book full of nonsense. Can someone else tell me if this is the normal crap or if it really has anything good? :D

I can't. I'm conserving time.

Too much for me to read...like when you go on those dating sites and someone has 10 paragraphs in their profile to describe themselves. You just say F' it and move on to the next one. :p

Another tie for the dumbest post ever on this forum.

That tells me it's a pretty smart school.

He doesn't really say anything. Now I want my three minutes back.

Ummm....no. I can't relate to that one. Sounds like you need to get out more BNR!:D

Nah, I'm trying to stay in more. Surfing the net is cheaper than trolling sports bars and nightclubs...and I'm less likely to get a DUI :eek:

But I digress...I am one who does not shy away from calling intentional/excessive contact fouls.

Why do I get the feeling that everything you don't agree with is a tie for the dumbest post ever on this forum?

OS-Some advice. Don't just set things up on a tee for people.

<i>We are officials to the game of basketball. That means we are suppose to uphold the integrity of the game.</i>

:D

Actually, he said "dumbest", but "dumpest" is also appropriate. :cool:

Advice taken, and some advice to you. A wise man once said, never under estimate your opponent. Remember Ali vs. Foreman....Foremen threw his best shots, was clearly the stronger of the two, and still lost the fight.

Thanks. But if it's all the same to you I think I'll avoid taking on all heavyweight title fighting boxers.

Dude this is not a heavyweight fight and there is not shot that is going to declare you a winner.

You will not change people's opinions by anything you say now. They have already formed their opinion about you and the positions you have taken. The problem for you is that your opinions are not anywhere on the radar.

Peace

You, Sir, are no Ali.

He's not even Buster Douglas.

Hooray!!! I just saw one called.

Illinois/Minnesota 2nd half breakaway foul = intentional. Great call.

Nope, just your posts, JMO

I think a lot of the problem that exists with whether or not to call an intentional foul exists because of the inheirant inconsistencies of the rule as well as the fact that there is no clearly defined criteria in the rulebook. For instance, we all agree that fouling to stop the clock is a legimate strategy, yet this is the essence of what an "intentional foul" is. A hard foul causing excessive contact is also ruled as intentional.

I think that this would be easier to call if we adopted the NBA's rules, replacing intentional fouls with Flagrant Penalty 1 and adopting the clear path foul and away from the play foul rules to cover the other aspects of the intentional foul. This would serve the purpose of making the game easier to officiate by allowing fouling at the end of the game as a legitimate strategy by rule, rather than by custom, and by clearly defining the types of infractions to call which make up the current intentional foul rule. Just my opinion, but I'd prefer the NBA system, or a modified version of it, compared to the current intentional foul rule.

As much as I dislike the NBA, you have a point about this.

I'd sure agree with that. Just tweak the rule to reflect the way it's being called concerning the strategic foul.

Finally, someone who has weighed in on this topic and not digress to petty insults. Very well stated and I agree. JR, you should take note here. Notice how this poster doesn't care about me or my name or my pseudo name. He focus on the topic. The same is true in officiating. Staying focus when all hell is breaking lose around you. One of my toughest straits, imo. You and the peanut gallery here, that is those that engage in character insults and not the issue, are like fans in my games. Man, do they go off when they don't get a call in there favor, and GOD only help me if I miss a call! I really thought this one guy was going to have a heart-attack the way he carried on about a 3-second lane violation I didn't call right at 3 seconds in a girls varsity game. Girls parents are the worse by far, imo. However, JR, the way you like to throw officials under the bus, you are a close 2nd. BTW, have you thrown any officials under the bus lately?

I have taken to asking the coach of the trailing team if he's going to foul to stop the clock. That way I call the first hack and avoid escalation since we let a lot of contact go during the game. Problems occur in the late moments because too many of us let the small contact go waiting for something more. I've seen that create more hassles than it's worth. Call it early and avoid tempers flaring at the end.
Yes, when you see an intentional foul, call it. Every year, NF has this as a POE because we don't.
Years ago NCAA tried making all fouls in the final two minutes two shots to stop the hackfest at the end of games. It didn't work.

Good luck with that. Jmo, but one day, that's gonna come back and bite you in the butt- big time.

Just call what happens. Don't anticipate anything.

Are you aware that your method is exactly the opposite of what the NFHS instructed officials to do in this year's POE?

2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

#5 Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals.
The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules. Officials must be consistent in the application of all rules, including:
• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team "wants" to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.
• Closely Guarded – Officials must properly judge the six-foot distance and begin a closely-guarded count when a defender obtains a legal guarding position. Failure to properly judge the six-foot distance and require the defender to be within three or four feet of the dribbler before beginning the closely-guarded count puts the defensive player in an unfair position. The count terminates when the dribbler gets head and shoulders past the defender.
• Coaching Box – In states that authorize the use of the optional coaching box, the head coach is the only person on the bench that is permitted to stand and must remain in the coaching box. All other bench personnel must remain seated at all times except when a team member is reporting to the scorer's table, during time-outs or intermissions, and to spontaneously react to a play.

Wow, JR is right. I could see this going south fast. You should know enough to know when to anticipate this without asking the coach. Here's why:

"Coach, you guys gonna foul?"
"Yeah, we'll try."
B1 goes in and comes out with the ball for a steal. You blow the whistle when B1 got close. Coach goes ballistic.
"You're just calling it because I told you--it was a clean steal!"