Hi The gang,

I had a game last night which the referee called three intentionals on the same player. My questions is how may intentional fouls can a referee give to the same player ?
I know that a player may not get more than two technicals fouls but what about intentional fouls?

Five Is The Answer
 

There is no rule about the maximum number of intentional fouls allowed for each player, other than the normal limit of five personals.

However, if this occurred in my game, I would have a little talk with the coach after the second one, asking for his help to control the player. Intentional fouls, particularly when they're aggressive fouls, are a leading cause of fights... and nobody wins when a fight breaks out. A little preventive officiating goes a long way.

Could you describe the fouls? The answer given above is correct, but I am wondering what the heck was going on for the same kid to get hit with three...were they all in the last minutes of the game? Break-away fouls? Give us the story...

Well, ok! but this might put the referee's decision in question. I was watching the game.

1-The first intentional was a push from behind for a rebound after the player complained that he was pushed. blah! blah! blah! ok

2- The second intentional was a moving screen that the referee judged to be intentional (of course) ???

3- The third one was a deliberate hold by the player in question. (hands off please!)

It seems that most of the calls were judgement calls but I wanted to know if there was a limit on the number of intentional fouls given to a player.

The only one here that I see as possibly being an "intentional foul" is #1. #2 is NOT an intentional foul. The player intended to move, sure, but they didn't intend on fouling nor does it sound like it was excessive contact. It doesn't fit the definition. #3 sound like a simple hold unless the fouled player had a direct play to the basket.

Intent is only part of the intentional foul rule.

I sure wish they would change the name.

Thanks for the complete info...I kind of wondered whether it was this type of situation...I agree that the only one which even comes close to being intentional is #1...was this player really vocal towards the officials or did he/she do something to earn the official's wrath?? I am really confused as to why someone would call these others intentional...unless they were very violent somehow...

When emphasis was put on the intentional foul rule and it was stated that you could call an intentional foul even if the player was going for the ball if the contact was "excessive", I took this to mean that the NF was now recognizing the wisdom of the NBA rule of having two different levels of "flagrant" fouls. One level required ejection, the other did not.

Since then, besides calling the standard type of intentional foul (such as grabbing a jersey in the last 10 seconds to stop the clock), I have used the intentional call when a foul deserved more consequence than a normal common foul, but not an ejection. This is the same as an NBA "flagrant level 1" foul (except no fine) :)

Perhaps the ref(s) that night were doing the same thing. BTW - was it the same guy who made all three calls?

Prefacing this with... You had to be there....
 

The first situation was definitely an intentional and could have possibly been judged as a "T" or even a "Flagarant". But as the ol' saying goes... ya had to be there.

The last two situations definitely appear to be common fouls, unless there are actions not included in the description that would "escalate the punishment".

P.S. Cameron... What "label" do you suggest to replace "intentional"?.... Retaliation???? Just curious.

Re: Prefacing this with... You had to be there....
 

I think that the excessive contact part should be seperated from the intentional foul to become a seperate foul...perhaps a "hard foul". Same penalty and definitions (broken into two). It would eliminate the notion that it always has to be intentional to be an intentional foul.

I can't think of a good name for the remaining part (or at least one that would be understood). It could be a tangential foul, a nonsense foul ;), a water fowl, ...better stop now before I get too silly.....too late. ;)

#3
 

Why is everyone thinking that #3 is not an intentional foul? If a player is not playing the ball and just grabs a player, going to the basket is not a factor. You cannot just grab a player just to be grabbing a player (ball handler or not). You still have to play the ball or the player that does not have the ball.

Now #2 and the moving screen call, I really do not know how they got that one.

Peace

To Camron - I totally agree that the intentional foul where a player is going for the ball but the contact was excessive should not be named an "intentional" foul. I also don't like the NBA terminology of "flagrant level 1" and "flagrant level 2". I don't think "water foul" is the answer either. :) Perhaps we could call it an "excessive contact foul" or something similar.

To Rut - good point. Guys - don't think that foul #3 would only be intentional on a grab if the intent was to stop play in an "endgame" situation. There is the possibility that an intentional grab could be just because the defender got beat and he's stopping a clear path to the basket at any point in the game. In either case, it's an intentional foul. I know this last one isn't specifically spelled out in NF rules like the "clear path" NBA foul, but it's intentional nonetheless.

Under NF rules, if you have a contact live ball foul, it can't be a technical foul. It's either a intentional or a flagrant foul. But not a technical.

I have always believed the rules are clear on this, but what about NF 10-3-10 that says it is a technical foul if a player "be charged with fighting"? Fighting is contact and it occurs during a live ball as well as a dead ball. You blow the whistle to make the ball dead as soon as you see the fight, but some of the fight can take place prior to the ball becoming dead.

If you want to get into the semantics, fighting is not necessarily a contact foul. Even drawing a fist back as if to punch someone is grounds for ejection.

In the case of a T for fighting, it is a flagrant technical, for which the penalty is the same as a flagrant personal foul, with the exception that the team now gets the ball at halfcourt instead of the spot of the foul.

That works for me! :)

I would also consider fighting somewhat different than a foul. And it does help keep the technical vs. intentional, flagrant clear.

It is different. Most foul contact is unintentional (with the exception, somehow, of this moving screen.) Fighting, however, is intentional, is reactionary, and intends to hurt someone.

Ok guys, and girls. I'm familiar with the rules, and the differences between intentional, flagrat etc. But, how do you signal a flagrant personal foul. I know we've talked about this a while back, and I know lots of people are strongly against signaling with the old baseball "heave-ho" but how do you signal a flagrant personal foul?

TR

Thanks for the clarification on this issue...
 

As I indicated on my initial response, You would have to be there to make a true assessment of what happened. But I do appreciate the delineation of no live ball "T" vs. Flagarant.

Threatening to punch someone is not fighting. It is unsportsmanlike conduct, however, and therefore is a technical foul. It may or may not be flagrant, although I probably would rule it to be so.

My point, however, was that if you cannot have a live ball contact foul be a technical foul, how does that reconcile with rule 10-3-10 that says that if a player is charged with fighting, it is a technical foul? Fighting is (OK, just to cover all the bases let's say "can be" instead of "is", but the question doesn't change) contact during a live ball.

Okay, so perhaps we can't legally make a blanket statement that no live ball foul results in a technical foul. But IMO, is not a foul, per se. It is a separate and distinguishable flagrant act. I don't think it's wrong to think of it within that interpretation.

"Fighting" also includes dead ball periods and DOES NOT require contact -- see 4-18.

So, fighting, with contact, during a dead ball is covered under 10-3-9.

Fighting without contact, during a dead or live ball, is covered under 10-3-10.

Fighting, with contact, during a live ball, is covered under 10-6.

Which would mean that the statement that I made earlier would be true. A live ball contact foul will not result in a technical foul.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Nov 5th, 2001 at 11:16 AM]

The "Fighting" begins with the swing (which much alway preceed the contact). Just like excessively swinging the elbows, the contact itself is not the issue, it is the swing and intent. A player can miss on either fighting or swinging of the elbows and both are still a T. If there is contact, both are still a T because of the swing...the contact is just icing on the cake.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

My point, however, was that if you cannot have a live ball contact foul be a technical foul, how does that reconcile with rule 10-3-10 that says that if a player is charged with fighting, it is a technical foul?

I made this exact same point a while back, Mark, although I can't remember which board I posted it to. I was assured by Mark DeNucci that the definition of personal foul (which is based on contact) "takes precedence" over 10-3-10. I still don't know why it takes precedence, but for all practical purposes, it's almost exactly the same; so I didn't press the point.

Chuck

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

I made this exact same point a while back,

After re-reading my post, I'm left wondering if it's possible to make the exact different point. :D

Maybe "exact same point" is redundant; maybe I'm just repeating myself; saying the same thing over and over. . .

Chuck