Why won't they call the intentional?

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Bernie Beckerman]

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.

[26 Year Gap]

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.

[tomegun]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tomegun

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

Amen!

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The POE written by the FED in the 2000-01 rulebook was never rescinded as far as I know----Acts that must be deemed intentional include grabbing/holding a player by the jersey in order to impede their progress".

But........

[JRutledge]

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

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[JustaRef]

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JustaRef

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

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 always being an intentional personal foul. In real life though.......

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

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.

[Eastshire]

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?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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 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!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Old School

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 now on the floor hurt, and is very slow to get up.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

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!

Any official calling the foul will also make the intentional foul signal immediately. Are you really saying that MOST officials would listen to a coach argue after the intentional foul call is made and signalled, and then MOST officials would change 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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Old School

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

So.......remember folks, if the defender voluntarily knocks the shooter to the floor, it's not an intentional foul.

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