Idea for refined definition and/or new mechanic
 

This past weekend I had a situation where A1 was going in for a break-away layup and defender B1 was making a valid attempt to block the shot. However, not only did B1 come into contact with the ball, there was, in my opinion, excessive contact as she ended up contacting A1 around the neck. I immediately came up with the "intentional" foul mechanic and gave team A two shots and the ball at the point nearest the foul. The call was the correct one to make, so no question there. My point is the name of the foul and the mechanic are confusing.

B coach wanted to know how I could call an "intentional" foul when her player was clearly playing the ball. I explained that the intentional foul was due to excessive contact not because it was on purpose. So, why do we call the same foul for two very different types of fouls? Why don't we keep the intentional foul for "on purpose" fouls, and come up with a new foul type, and mechanic, for "excessive contact" fouls? Lumping them together seems to be a source of confusion for coaches, fans and officials.

"Coach - the intentional foul I called was not because the foul was intentional." Huh? Separating these into two different foul types would be an improvement IMO.

It has already been said in this forum, but just to recall: the guys of FIBA, some years ago, were debating the same problem. The name, from "intentional foul", was changed into "unsportsmanlike foul"; the criteria for calling a U foul are similar to the ones for the NCAA "intentional personal foul":

36.1.4 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 commits a foul while making a legitimate effort to play the ball (normal play), it is not an unsportsmanlike foul.

The NCAA's rulebook says "play the ball or the player", which is also the common interpretation in FIBA (otherwise any off-ball contact would be U).

Ciao

At the NCAA level there is a foul signal that indicates you have an intentional foul with excessive contact. Maybe that could be used at the HS level.

Having said that, I am not completely sold on the fact that you had an intentional foul based on what you described. If all the player did was make contact with the neck, that is not in my opinion what an intentional foul is for. Now if the player pushed that player from behind and put them into the third row, then I could at the very least go along with that considering the casebook uses that play. Not that I personally agree with that if there was a clean block, but you do have rules support. When you have a block, there is going to be some contact. You will almost never have a block where something is not contacted.

Peace

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.

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

You could always use the current mechanic AND verbalize "excessive contact". Then you're communicating your reasoning for the call to everyone right away.

Hmmmmmmm.........

Not a bad idea actually imo. Same penalty, but one signal for "not playing the ball" and another signal for "excessive, non-flagrant contact". Makes sense. Signals are supposed to convey information.

Ditto. That's how I've been taught to do it. It takes out the surprise factor at the table.

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.

Exactly my point!

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

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

Casebook play 4.19.3SitB.

I agree with RUT, unless the person hit the floor from the contact, this is not intentional by definition of the rule.
Because of the punishment. The offense gets the ball back after 2 F/T's at the POI. Intentional fouls are also not technical fouls. You get 5 intentional fouls, but only 2 technical fouls. Because of this payload, I do not agree with upgrading a dead ball intentional foul to a technical unsportmanslike foul.

Because it all fits rather nicely to me under one umbrella. Only one thing to remember. Easier to administer across the board. BTW, the coach was not confused, he was just mad for you upgrading the foul to intentional and was looking for an angle to poke at you with. From the sounds of it, he was successful. However, there is no confusion once you learn what the rule means and what it's purpose is.

That's just in your opinion. Increasing the # of foul types and mechanic signals makes it more confusing to me. Less is better if we're talking the same rule which this is. Remember, this change would have to be nation wide so to incorporate something so small over the entire nation would introduce more confusion to me. Let's just stick to changing the big things.

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.