You make the call
 

Freshman boys game. A1 is OOB for a spot throw in. Heavy defensive pressure, including B1 who is right in front of him. At about 3 in the count, A1 reaches over the line, places a hand on B1's chest, and pushes him back a couple of inches.

What would you call?

assuming I have a call
 

If I make a call I would think intentional. Can't be player control because there is no player control. It certainly is intentional, but darn it, it just wasn't nice of that other boy to play defense right there :eek:

Intentional foul on A1, IMO.

I would probably just call a common foul on A1. Same thing as lowering the shoulder or pushing off to catch a pass.

I'd have to see it but I'd probably call a common foul too.

I would say Common Foul.

B1 shots bonus free throws if in the bonus.

(NCAA: No free throws)

It's interesting because if A1 contacts B1 then it can be intentional OR common. If B1 contacts A1 then it can only be intentional (unless the contact is on a part of A1 that is over the court). I guess this is why A1's foul can be common because B1 is on the court.

If the tables were reversed it would be an intentional foul, why not here?

What if . . . you assume that B! in contact with the inbounds portion of the court is considered to part of the court because of his/her contact with the court. Therefore, if A1 touches B1 then he/she is actually now touching inbounds and we then have a violation . . . B's ball? Just thinking out loud . . .

In real time and real life, intentional foul on A1. Shoot and go!

I agree with the foul, but if you didnt think it was enough to call a foul could you not also call a violation? Since B is in bounds, when he touches him is that not the same as putting your foot down in bounds before releasing the ball?

Just a thought

It's an interesting thought, but the tables aren't reversed. Until the rules specify this as an intentional foul, I have to judge it like I would any other. If he's just trying to clear space, it's probably a common foul. If it's something more, I'm not against the X.

Can't call a violation. If A1 has the ball in bounds and touches B2 who has a foot on the line; it's not a violation.

Intentional personal foul. That's not a basketball play.

I agree. I would only call an intentionaal fould, well at least not call a common foul. A push off trying to get open is much more of basketball play than this.

Exactly.

Recently, we had a discussion about whether or not a player with the ball can committ an intentional foul. I don't want to hijack the thread, but what do you think?

I've called it, so I obviously think it's possible. :D "Intentional" supercedes "player control."

Sure. It happened just last night ;)

I called it intentional. My basis was that if it's an intentional for the defense to reach through and touch the offense, the offense has even less reason to do it and should face the same penalty. And it wasn't like it was tight quarters either. He had fifty feet he could have backed up if he wanted to. An indefensibly non-basketball play.

Good question. We've had that same discussion here a few times over the years too, but I don't think that we ever came to a consensus. It isn't definitively covered imo.

If the player with the ball deliberately elbows another player, you can call an intentional personal foul instead of a PC foul.

Also imo, if the player uses the ball to foul:
- if the player throws the ball and hits somebody, and you deem it a deliberate unsporting act, you can call the "T". Case book play 10.3.7SitB does give us some kind of direction on that.
- if a player holding the ball uses the ball to push off and gain an unfair advantage, I'd treat that act the same as a player using their forearm to push off. Iow, player control foul. Maybe even an intentional personal foul if he knocked the defender on his butt with the ball. Of course if he hits him in the face/head with the ball, buh-bye. The only other alternatives are calling a "T" for an unsporting act or ignoring it, and I certainly don't recommend ignoring it. I don't think that there's any real definitive rules coverage that will favor one call over the other though.