I posted a reply to one of the other threads, and the basic point I raised seemed to get passed over on a technicality. I wanted to repost it, because I wanted to get opinions on what I found.

The basic premise was that someone bearhugged a player near the end of the game to stop the clock, and the question was whether or not that was intentional. There was another issue involved with that call, but for this example, I just want the bearhug as the initial and only foul involed.

According to the NFHS rulebook, page 30, "An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is NOT based on the severity of the act." (emphasis added by me)

From the NFHS Simplified and Illustrated (last year's edition), Page 9, "Acts that MUST be deemed intentional may include: 1) grabbing a player from behind; 2) wrapping the arms around a player; 3)grabbing a player away from the ball; 4) grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored;..." (no more relevant to this discussion, and emphasis on MUST added by me)

Reading these two items, it would appear that the bear hug, whether or not excessive, is definitely defined by the rules as intentional. I have found in the games that I have done, there is a very strong apprehension about referees calling intentional fouls. They never seem to want to do it, and even when I have had situations during the game (most occur later in the game, but some do occur throughout) that warrant it according to the rules, most of the time they don't call it, or if I ask my partner, they say "that wasn't intentional".

I do understand the concept of calling the game fairly throughout. That is important.

But I don't understand why many refs, even though the rules say one thing, they choose to ignore it. They seem to feel that the late game fouling to stop the clock, which is specifically defined in the rules as not allowed (not the late game part, but the fouling to stop the clock), is a part of the game and should be allowed. It seems to me that this isn't really a judgement call, but more of a "I don't like that rule, so I'm not going to enforce or call it." This doesn't seem like something that is supposed to be our purvue - we make judgements about plays, according to the rules, and make our calls based on that (and a little common sense... but common sense shoulnd't override a hard and fast rule) - you can't play a game without rules.

I'm expecting a firestorm after this one, because I have always been a by-the-book ref. Blast shield up!

I apologise for repeating this, but I didn't think after the replies I got that the basic question, on why we are calling intentionals the way we do vs. the way the book seems to want it called, was being addressed. Thanks for any input!

My Opinion
 

IMHO, a bear hug is almost always intentional. As a former rec player, my team made many a late game come back knowing the ref's wouldnt call intentional as we held an in-bounds opponent during a throw in, thus fouling without the clock moving. RARELY was this called intentional. Of course rarely were the Ref's doing the rec games by the books.

Look, we all know that the strategy is to foul to stop the clock late in the game. The key I think is to use judgement on what is intentional vs. an "agressive attempt to steal the ball".

My Vote: Go for the ball = perosnal foul. Go for the player = Intentional.

Anyway, that is my opinion and I certainly lack the experience of probably most of you. I'll be interested to hear follow-ups as well.

I call this an intentional foul. Wouldn't best case scenario for the team trailing be to get possession of the ball without lhaving to foul? If a player makes a play for the ball, this can happen. The player might actually get a steal without having the official call a foul. Wouldn't this be better for the trailing team? If so, then why just go grab someone, thereby eliminating this possibility. I will tell the players and/or coach to make a play on the ball, you never know what the official might call or not call.

I think you have to call the bearhug by the rule. However, if it is not a dangerous foul, I can understand why some are hesitant to call the intentional except when it is obvious or dangerous. Think about the other side of the equation. Often, you can have a very hard foul at a time when everyone knows the defense has to foul, but you can't (or shouldn't) call intentional because they make a legit attempt at the ball. This is clearly more dangerous to all involved than the bearhug.

If my players will get the intentional foul for the bearhug, then they will go through a player to get the ball, resulting in a foul that we all hope isn't going to level the player(s) involved. But I teach them to get ball because 1) it won't be an intentional foul and 2) we either have a turnover or you are forced to call the foul (we love the first, will setle for the second!). But when players go ard for the ball knowing that they are going to foul, it is clearly more dangerous than the bearhug. so i think that the thinking in many minds is, "Where would you rather be?"

Personally, I think that the intentional foul rule for end of game should be like the quarterback spiking the ball on a stop clock (remember when that was intentional grounding?). NF/NCAA should recognize that the rule doesn't prevent the intentional foul, it merely forces us coaches and players to disguise it as a real foul, making the situation more dangerous. I would rather you allow the safe intentional than force the potentially rough "attempt at the ball" foul, knowing that the foul will happen either way.

Personally, I think that the intentional foul rule for end of game should be like the quarterback spiking the ball on a stop clock (remember when that was intentional grounding?). NF/NCAA should recognize that the rule doesn't prevent the intentional foul, it merely forces us coaches and players to disguise it as a real foul, making the situation more dangerous. I would rather you allow the safe intentional than force the potentially rough "attempt at the ball" foul, knowing that the foul will happen either way. [/B][/QUOTE]

The downside to that idea is more free throws / longer games. There is always the intentional foul rule that states "fouls of a savage nature".

The downside to that idea is more free throws / longer games. There is always the intentional foul rule that states "fouls of a savage nature". [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't see anything anywhere that requires an intentional foul to be of a savage nature - that would qualify as flagrant. Can you please tell me what rule source you are quoting in that last statement?

LARKS

I believe you are referring to a Flagrant Personal Fouls. :)

Agreed
 

I stand corrected. That is what I meant. I dont have my book handy so I'm shooting from the hip....and a rookie....please show mercy!

Coach, the intentional foul rule reads that even if a player is making an attempt at the ball, it is an intentional foul if the contact is excessive.

As I've stated before, when this language was added to the rule a few years ago, I thought it was because the NF was finally recognizing the need for some kind of call on hard fouls that fell short of being hard enough to deserve ejection, but needed a penalty beyond that of a common foul. The NBA has this in their "flagrant 1" and "flagrant 2" system, where one results in ejection and one doesn't. If used in this context, it's a really good tool and a really good rule.

However, I do agree with you that if we don't call the "soft" intentional quickly, the contact level will escalate. What I don't like is that the rule may be interpreted by some as a license to foul harder (get their money's worth, so to speak), since the penalty is the same (assuming the contact falls short of flagrant). I really don't have an answer on how to mitigate this situation.

Yet again - the FIBA perspective
 

You may all be interested to know that it is because of this exact type of discussion that FIBA recently (about 4 years ago) changed its rules. We now no longer have an "intentional" foul, instead we only have an "unsportsmanlike" foul.

Basically the main difference is that now the intent of the player is irrelevant - it has been argued that unless you are a mind reader then you cannot judge what a player's intent was. Changing the rule to an "unsportsmanlike" foul allows the referee to simply judge the action - not the intent (or lack of) behind it.

I personally think this is one of the best rule changes made in the past few years, as it has all but removed the "But I went for the ball" arguement from players and coaches.

Well, I have to admit that the general tenor of this conversation has been that the intentional foul should be called when it is deserved. What I find interesting is that most of the people I talk to prefer to never call it, seeing anything that is done to stop the clock late in the game as legal, if it is short of flagrant, because that is one of the strategies in the game, and calling the Intentional negates that advantage caused by stopping the clock.

It is nice to see that some people agree with me in my interpretation! Thanks for the advice :)

I agree with you as well. A bear hug should always be an intentional foul. However, in the previous post, a common foul occurred first, the official failed to call it, and then was forced to call the intentional. That's an error in judgment IMHO.

I still prefer to look for reasons not to call an intentional foul, just like I lokk for reasons not to call a technical foul. That doesn't mean that I will ignore the rule when one presents itself.

To truly call an intentional foul correctly, we would have to always call an intentional foul when we know that the strategic thing to do is to foul to stop the clock. But I don't think that is the intent of the rule.

Re: Agreed
 

Welcome to the board rook! :p

This has been great to hear all the debate on the intentional foul call. I personally like Larks comment about the quaterback intentionally spiking the ball to stop the clock. The football rules allow this as the way for a team to stop the clock and get back into the game instead of having some weird rule considering it intentional grounding. The NBA, WNBA, and FIBA as I just found out by a recent post have no intentional foul rule. I wish the high school and college game would follow suit. Every team in America will foul to stop the clock when they are down towards the end of the game. Why penalize them extra for doing this? This is exactly what they should do. Don't try to read their minds and decide if they are going for the ball or not. Just give them the foul and try to blow it quick before they do have to foul hard. Know the game situation and that a foul is imminent. Now if the foul is committed in an unsporting manner or in a manner which could injure a player than this is a different matter. Call the intentional in this case. Out of room so I'll continue on another page.

But please don't the call the intentional foul just because you think a team if fouling to stop the clock. Call intentional fouls when a guy gets pushed to the floor or when a guy gets a hard shot from behind on a breakaway layup. Now, a point was brought up about a player fouling a person without the ball in a rec game to stop the clock. I would totally agree that this should be an intentional foul because then the worst shooter can be picked out and fouled even when the are not involved in the play at all. In the NBA/WNBA we have a rule called away-from-the-play foul which handles this situations. I'm ready BasketballRef, I am sure you are ready to blast me once again. That's good though, I like that.

But again, here we go with not following the rule. There is almost a passing reference to too much force being used being considered an intentional foul, when it is clearly stated that the intentional foul is for a clock-stopping foul. When the coach and players are telling them to foul, and they do so, this is one of the situations that is covered to be called as an intentional. To say that we aren't supposed to call the intentional foul because we think someone is trying to stop the clock is completely contradictory to the rules. Another quote:

Because this is exactly what the rule is designed for. EXACTLY - it is the first line in the rule...

"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is NOT based on the severity of the act."

We're starting to veer away from the text of the rule and into the "well, this is just what they do, so we should let them do it" - it's not an extra penalty for a strategic move... it is a strategic move that is not allowed by the rules and carries an extra penalty. Since we are there to see that the rules are followed, we really don't have the right to say "Gee, I don't think they SHOULD be penalized extra for that" - The rules say they do, and so they do! You make a choice to foul intentionally to stop the clock, and tell your players to do so "FOUL FOUL FOUL!!!!", or tell the ref you're going to, or foul away from the ball, or make no reasonable attempt at the ball, and that carries an additional penalty.

Well, I don't recall blasting you previously. If you'll be more concerned with the content of what's posted, you'll see that you and I are on the same page with this.

BTW, if you're an NBDL and an WNBA official, why are you just now learning that those associations don't have an intentional foul?

More on this...
 

Anyone read this as they want us to call ANY foul made by the losing team on the ball handler intentional if it occurs in the later stages of the game?

Can anyone clearly define later stages?

Why give that kind of advantage to the team in the lead? Look at the phrase "may or may not be premeditated". Someone above made the commment aboud "mind reading". I missed that section during class!

I'd like to see comments on when a foul is designed to stop the clock vs. when a foul is designed to steal the ball or block the shot.

While we are at it....here's another example: Winning team A3 catches a pass down in the post and during a shot attempt, is fouled by B2 late in the 4th. Everyone in the gym knows that A3 was fouled because late in the game, if you're going to have to give up points, he may as well earn them. Intentional? Ever hear the phase "No Easy Baskets"?

So, I'm back to this...if the defender is going for the ball or going to block the shot late in a game....who here calls intentional? Bear hugs, off the ball holds, a two handed shove, a tackle, a fore arm shiver, etc. in my mind are intentional. A guy fouling in the act of attempting a steal which coincidentally stops the clock isnt.

At least IMHRO (In My Humble Rookie Opinion)

In the points of emphasis last year, there was a discussion of this, where it referred to the "strategic" foul. This is NOT an intention foul and should not be called as such. The difference is that the strategic foul is a legitimate attempt on the ball, and probably mostly looks like any other foul throughout the game -- an overzealous block, or a reach that doesn't work right, or such.

The "intentional" foul has the purpose of manipulating the rules rather than just overplaying. I've called intentional fouls early in the game that weren't very "excessive". The dribbler had inside position, and the defender was keeping up, but had no chance to legally stop the lay-up, so she reached across and whacked the non-dribbling arm of the dribbler. It was clearly a foul to take away the obvious advantage, and had no other purpose, although it was not late in the game and the defender's team was ahead. I called it intentional and the coach went -- well, I wont go into THAT -- but by rule I was right.

What I wish they would do is change the word "intentional" On a play that is excessive contact, the word intentional is kind of offensive, because usually the fouler is not hurting the other player "intentionally" but just being sloppy or unskilled. As a parent, I used to get my feathers ruffled when my daughteer or one of her teammates got called for intentional. It wasn't on purpose (except at the end of the game), they were just too rough.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how many HS refs could handle yet another category of foul. And I;'m pretty sure how many parents and fans could understand it...

Re: More on this...
 

Here's how I judge it:

Suppose there is a certain defensive maneuver that results in a steal 10% of the time, and a foul 90% of the time. (In this hypothetical situation, no other results are possible.)

If a player uses this maneuver in the first quarter, the coach will probably pull the player. But, in the last minute of the game, with the team behind by 3 points, it might be the best play. It's not an intentional foul.

Re: Re: More on this...
 

With my teams, if I have a player that only does this once in a quarter I am playing her the whole game ;)

At the end of the game when the team that is behind in points is trying to stop the clock, would you consider a player lowering his shoulder, without a play on the ball, and running into the dribbler an intentional foul? From my angle, I felt it was intentional all the way and received a raised eyebrow from the veteran official I was working with when I called the intentional foul. Without seeing the play, any thoughts from the board?

I had this exact situation last night. Team A has the ball and Team B is pressing...ball gets to half court and a struggle for a loose ball occurs. Player B1 bear hugs A1 (who ended up with the ball) and drags him to the ground, I called an intentional, mainly becuase he brought A1 to the ground.

Thoughts, commments?

IMHRO (In My Humble Rookie Opinion)....

Lowering shoulder, bear hugs, off ball holds, two handed shoves....all intentional....going for the ball with a reach or hammering a shooter to help them earn it is an awfully tough intentional.

If you are talking about a football block without trying in any way to extend a hand toward the ball - absolutely you can call the intentional to protect the dribbler. If you are saying that there was a hand extended like they were playing the ball and it could slightly remotely possibly be a play on the ball but it was unlikely to be successful, I think you have a common foul. You know they had no realistic play, but I wouldn't go fishing for anything more than a common foul unless it is a real attempt to flatten a player or an excessively hard foul.

BasketballRef, certainly I am aware that the NBDL and WNBA have no intentional fouls and have no that for quite some time. The reference I made was to FIBA not having intentional fouls. I was not aware of this until yesterday when I read it on a post. First time I have used a quote, I hope it works out OK.

FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

The main thing I am hearing here is that just because a fouls is designed to stop the clock - it shouldn't be called an intentional (although the rules say otherwise).

Here is the exact wording of the Unsportsmanlike rule (FIBA):

Art. 46 Unsportsmanlike foul
46.1 Definition
46.1.1 An unsportsmanlike foul is a personal foul committed by a player which, in the judgement of the official, is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball within the spirit and intent of the rules.
46.1.2 Unsportsmanlike fouls must be interpreted consistently throughout the whole game.
46.1.3 The official must judge only the action.
46.1.4 To judge whether a foul is unsportsmanlike, the officials should apply the following principles:
• If a player is making no effort to play the ball and contact occurs, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.
• If a player, in an effort to play the ball, causes excessive contact (hard foul), then the contact shall be judged to be unsportsmanlike.
• If a player holds, hits, kicks or deliberately pushes an opposing player, it is an unsportsmanlike foul.
• If a player commits a foul whilst making a legitimate effort to play the ball (normal basketball play), it is not an unsportsmanlike foul.
46.1.5 A player who repeatedly commits unsportsmanlike fouls must be disqualified.
(Emphasis added)

You can see that this makes no mention of fouling to stop the clock, and actually emphasises that these fouls must be called consistently throught the game.

Now I have found this quite difficult to adjust to after calling obvious clock stopping fouls at the end of the game as "intentional". But I do believe it is better for the game.

As an aside, this change of rules makes it almost impossible to penalise a coach/team when the coach is screaming "Foul,foul,foul" in the dying part of the game - although you can still call a Tech foul on the coach for unsportsmanlike conduct (actively encouraging his/her players to break the rules).

Could this be one of the few occasions where you non-FIBA referees may actually prefer the FIBA rule? What is the process for getting rules in NFHS changed, and would you like to see this rule changed?

Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

Anyone here ever call an intentional foul on a player after fouling because everyone on the (losing) bench is yelling "FOUL!" I havent encountered this sitch yet so I'm courious if anyone doing NFHS has called it like this.

Signed: The Latest Rook, Larks

BasketballRef, certainly I am aware that the NBDL and WNBA have no intentional fouls and have no that for quite some time. The reference I made was to FIBA not having intentional fouls. I was not aware of this until yesterday when I read it on a post. First time I have used a quote, I hope it works out OK. [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks for clarifying. The way it was written...well, I guess I just read it incorrectly.

Congrats on the quote! ;)

Re: Re: More on this...
 

Well, if they are going for the ball, then that is a legit play by my reading of the rules. So it wouolnd't be intentional. I don't have a problem with people fouling when playing the game. The reading of that rule on intentionals is that it is a foul to do something whose purpose is to stop the clock - if all you do is foul with no attempt at the ball, that is a clock-stopping thing late in the game, therefore it is intentional. If it could reasonably be expected to get the ball (10% isn't reasonable, in my book!!) - then it is a common.

I agree with this - I don't agree with the strategy to intentionally foul to stop the clock, without making a legit attempt at the ball.I just have a problem with the fact that refs are unlikely/unwilling/uncomfortable calling intentionals, when you have the obvious fouls - but it seems like everyone is agreeing that the two handed push from behind and the bear hug are intentionals. That is what I wish would be called more often - or grabbing the arm away from the ball...

Thanks again for all the advice!

Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

Ha! That's a good one, Oz.

You'll never draw us over to the dark side . . .

I think the deep-seeded hatred for FIBA comes from two sources: (1) we invented the game and the rules - FIBA went and changed them. (2) The whole 1984 US vs. Russia game was decided by the VP of FIBA, if I remember correctly.

Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

Ah, Mark, the 1984 Olympics were played in Los Angeles. The Soviet Union, as well as the other Comuunist block nations, boysotted the Games, because we boycotted the 1980 games in Moscow. Incidentally, the USA, led by Michael Jordan, won the gold medal in basketball. They were the last completely collgiate USA team to win the gold medal.

My guess is that you were very young at the time. :)

David,

Allow me to share some things with you that occurred to me last year.

Last year, the NFHS POE included intentional fouls. We heard in our clinics that intentional fouls must be called and yadda yadda yadda, this and that, blah blah blah. Anyway, I said, "Okay, I going to call it that way!"

Guess what? For the entire first month of the season, I stayed in the soup. On two occassions, I called rule book, excessive contact, intentional fouls. In both cases, it set the coaches off and I ended up busting both of them before the end of their games. All it takes is a couple of calls to your booking agent and you've got problems.

The fact is, until everyone starts calling the rule the way it's written, until the coaches come to accept it, and until those in higher places start backing us up when we call it, I won't be calling anything but the obvious ones.

Now that's the voice of experience! There's Points of Emphasis and there's reality. I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with you. But the truth is that if you try to be a pioneer in this situations, you'll be punished.

Call the obvious but look for a reason not to call it when you can.

Tony

Re: Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

Well, I wasn't alive in 1980, and was only 1 during the 1984 Olympics.

When was the big scandal where the US team should have won and ended up refusing their silver medals?

Re: Re: Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

It was in Munich, Germany 1972 and the VP of FIBA was a Yugoslavian - and therefor closely aligned with the USSR.

Like I said before, the 1972 Munich Games . . .

:D

Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

I know certain Canadians that would object to that "we".

But in all seriousness - is the FIBA rule better? And how does the NFHS go about changing the rules?

Now you're talkin
 

Now THAT is a different spin on this...coming from a Rook, that last thing I need is a black mark when I've put the time in that I have to get started.

Larks

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

However, the situation was handled properly. We Americans don't like it, but the situation was handled as it should have been. There was a story about it in REFEREE magazine a year or so ago.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!!

You seriously support a spectator coming down from the stands and instructing the officials on what to do???? Anybody ever does that to me during a game and it will be the last time that I referee for that organisation.

When we start allowing people from the stands (regardless of their perceived authority) to make decisions about how to officiate a game - you might as well stop the game on every perceived foul/violation and have a committe review video and make a call.

Just goes to show how much you really know about it.

The Soviet coach was attempting to call a timeout using an electronic device that coaches used to activate a light at the table before DougCollins shot his second FT. When the device wouldn't work, he frantically signalled TO. The table officials hit the horn, trying to alert the game officials, just s Collins released his second shot. The Bulgarian official on the floor didn't realize that the Soviet coach wanted TO until the ball had been inbounded.

It was at that time that R. William Jones, then the head of FIBA, left his seat and instructed the table officials to reset the clock to 3 seconds. According to your executive director of FIBA, Borislav Stankovic, "The intervetnion of Mr. Jones at that time was absolutley legal because he was president of the technical commission, and the table made mistakes. His intervetion is to correct the mistakes of the table." That's from your executive director, Duane, not mine.

After the TO, the officials allowed the Soviets to inbounded the ball, even though the table officials were trying to alert them that the clock was set to 50 seconds.

So, the ball was inbounded a third time, and this time...well, we all know what happened.

It's true, a series of blunders marred the end of the game. But the mistakes were made by human beings in a pressure cooker, not by officials who were attempting to deliberately throw the game.

BTW, the source of the REFEREE article was an Australian videtape entitled: The Story of the Game: The Official History of Basketball. Perhaps you should see it.

Excellent game summary - and absolutely right. I grew up in Bloomington Normal IL, where Doug Collins went to college (ISU). He came back and was terated to a gold medal hero's welcome complete with the Goodyear Blimp (the only time that thing ever made it to town when I lived there!). I subscribed avidly to the myth of "we was robbed - and it was those Damn commie block officials!"

Many years later I saw a show that explained what really happened and the full sequence of events. Not what we heard here in the Cold War. but it made a lot more sense, and while i still feel that bad officiating cost us the game, I no longer feel as though it was a case of giving the Ruskies do-overs until they scored.

Re: Re: Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Quote:

Well, I wasn't alive in 1980, and was only 1 during the 1984 Olympics.

How the heck did I get to be so friggin' old?!?! Not even alive in 1980? Time for a new keyboard. All the tears have ruined this one. :(

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FIBA is better - at least in theis sitch
 

Chuck, don't call yourself old - just think of me as being historically deficient.

Scary, isn't it?