Idea for refined definition and/or new mechanic

[rfp]

The contact with the player's neck practically clotheslined her. You had to see it of course, but the contact was severe. Partner and site supervisor agreed with the call. My issue is whenever this call is made, the explanation always seems illogical to me. Calling an intentional foul when it really isn't intentional bothers me.

[JRutledge]

You also said the contact started with a clean block. Whether the supervisor agreed or not is not the issue. I do not know if that fits what an intentional foul is. And part of the reason the explanation would not fit, might be because there is nothing inherent in what you stated to be an intentional foul. Contact with the head or the neck is not an automatic foul when the defender did nothing wrong. If that is the case than a legal screen where a player gets hit in the head and also should also be called an intentional foul.

Now if there was a ruling that said what you described as a foul, then I would go along with your judgment. Remember contact can be severe and not be a foul. Now that is in the rulebook, calling an intentional foul because a player got hit in the head or the neck is not a ruling for an intentional foul.

Peace

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You also said the contact started with a clean block. Whether the supervisor agreed or not is not the issue. I do not know if that fits what an intentional foul is. And part of the reason the explanation would not fit, might be because there is nothing inherent in what you stated to be an intentional foul. Contact with the head or the neck is not an automatic foul when the defender did nothing wrong. If that is the case than a legal screen where a player gets hit in the head and also should also be called an intentional foul.

Now if there was a ruling that said what you described as a foul, then I would go along with your judgment. Remember contact can be severe and not be a foul. Now that is in the rulebook, calling an intentional foul because a player got hit in the head or the neck is not a ruling for an intentional foul.

Peace

I think you're overthinking it, based solely on the OP's written description of the foul. You're missing the forest for the trees.

The point is, in a situation where the contact was not intentional by definition of the word "intentional," but still meets the definition of an intentional foul due to excessive contact is there a better way this type of foul can be reported in order to clear up confusion? I think so, and I lean towards Jurassic's suggestion.

[rfp]

Exactly my point!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

I think you're overthinking it, based solely on the OP's written description of the foul. You're missing the forest for the trees.

The point is, in a situation where the contact was not intentional by definition of the word "intentional," but still meets the definition of an intentional foul due to excessive contact is there a better way this type of foul can be reported in order to clear up confusion? I think so, and I lean towards Jurassic's suggestion.

Actually I think you are missing my point. I am saying it is questionable that this is an intentional foul based on the definition. A signal is not going to change that at all. There is a signal in the CCA Mechanics (NCAA level) for excessive contact and that will not change whether people agree that this particular play or contact should be deemed an intentional foul. Unless there is something very specific put into definition, there will be people that will argue that this would not change whether this is an actual intentional foul.

The current rulings from the NF suggest that the player is put to the floor. This apparently did not happen.

Peace

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The current rulings from the NF suggest that the player is put to the floor. This apparently did not happen.

Peace

Can you give a reference? I'm still not clear on what you're getting at.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12

Can you give a reference? I'm still not clear on what you're getting at.

Casebook play 4.19.3SitB.

[DC_Ref12]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Casebook play 4.19.3SitB.

Thanks, Jurassic.

I dunno. According JRut's interpretation of that case play, then an intentional foul playing the ball would have to necessitate a) going to the floor AND b) going out of bounds.

I think this is one of those cases where we're reading too much into the case play.