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.

BTW, this is incorrect. This was an intentional foul for excessive contact, what you told the coach was wrong. Get the terminology right and you won't confuse yourself.

I think you are reading too much into what I am saying. I did not say you had to have a player going to the floor and going out bounds. I am saying that having a signal is not going to eliminate the reality that people will still disagree with a call like this and will point to the NF rulings on this.

Also this very same play is in the Simplified and Illustrated on page 47 and shown in two pictures. Also there is no reference to being out of bounds. So the issue of being out of bounds is not at all a factor as to why I am making this point. As a matter of fact I did not remember the “out of bounds” reference on this play. But if you are calling such a foul just because there was contact with the head or neck, then that will be seen by some as a stretch. If that is the case then there are a lot of intentional fouls we do not call. A signal is not going to change that fact.

Peace

Case plays sometimes just give you direction, not absolutes. I can envision intentional fouls for excessive contact that don't involve a player hitting the deck. An example would be a two-handed push off the ball with not enough contact to be called "flagrant". I can also envision players hitting the deck through contact where not even a foul was warranted.

Well, you could make that argument for every foul that is called in basketball. Your point is taken, though.

Just remember that the OP included a discussion with the coach about "why" this was an intentional foul. Even with a signal there is still going to be some debate on a call like this.

Peace

I'm not an O/S basher, but did you really say this? If this ain't the pot.....:D

This is why some of us just ignore him. ;)

Peace

My theory is that he's a top official just having fun on here, getting a rise out of everybody with a bunch of off the wall posts. :D

For his sake I hope so.

Peace

Doesn't the NBA have two levels of flagrant fouls - one that includes ejection and one that doesn't? Maybe we should consider this at lower levels.

I do not know all the details of the difference but yes they do. If you get so many Flagrant 1 fouls they can be suspended if they have so many of these types of fouls. Flagrant 2 fouls are an ejection from the game they are participating in. Not sure if there is an automatic suspension or what it is.

Peace

Perhaps the theory is that excessive contact requires intent. A player should know how hard he will contact his opponent. Therefore a hard foul has to have been intentionally hard.

Just a thought.

This is totally wrong. In the NBA you can get suspended for excessive contact and not even have a foul called on the play. I think the Flagrant 1 and 2 is kind of ridiculous. Anything that has flagrant in it, should mean ejection, period. Since I do not work in the NBA I don't have to sweat that.

The intentional foul in HS and college is being used correctly, imo. I will say the Indirect Technicals in NCAA is completely out of control. It is an intentional foul to hold somebody before the ball is inbounded, it is an intentional foul for excessive contact. To add to what JRut is saying, every I/F call is going to be debated by the receiving coach. Everyone that I have called the receiving coach disagreed with, 100 out of 100 times. I think the OP is at the point in his career where he is beginning to understand this rule. Yes, it covers 2 cases, but only one signal, that's a good thing. I am not in the boat of adding more signals, it is still an I/F, and I don't care how many different mechanic signals you add to it. Two shots and the ball back at the POI.

OS -While I am not in favor of adding more signals to the game -
Sifgnals are used to convey a message to the coaches, players, your partners, and fans as to what you have called.
So when a play grabs another player and the official gives the big "X" for intentional that is understood by all.
So now when you have a player chasing down another player on a breakaway and the defender blocks the shot but in the process wipes out the offensive player two rows into the stands and now you come up with an "X" based on excessive contact - people (and Dick Vitale, and Billy Packer) will say the foul was flagrant, and be confused when the player is not removed from the game because they are unaware of the excessive contact clause of the rule, and become confused?

The addition of a secondary signal would be effective in such cases.

as to your statement regarding Indirect Technicals being out of hand in 20 plus NCAA dates this year on the floor, 8 more as an alternate, plus 25 to 30HS or Prep-Scool games I was involved with not a one Intnetional Technical called, add another 100 pluss games watched and that number stays at 0.

The only one I have seen was last weekend when a player measured another up for an Elbow before the ball was at the disposal on an inbound play during an AAU game.
I do not see a trend in that direction can you back that up with some facts or stats?

I have the reason for this, nobody, I mean nobody wants to go there in the NCAA, because it's so complex. A better point might be, how many indirect technical fouls can you call in the NCAA and how many different penalities come in to play from this. Add to that, who is accessed what, and how many different technical fouls versus regular fouls, versus indirect fouls leads to an ejection.

let me add I do not recall a situation where one needed to be called either.

I have an end of season review and film session mid next week with another group of officials and I will bring this up - but IMO at the NCAA level if it needs to be called it is called.
The last thing that people worry about is technical fouls versus regular fouls, versus indirect fouls, or ejections.
I had a partner whack the conference commissioner in a game this year.
You do what you have to do.

NFHS Rule 4-19-3 states: ... A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent. That seems to apply in this case.

Actually, it is correct. "Intent" was not the reason for the intentional foul. That's all he told the coach. By rule, it's an intentional foul, but the reasoning had nothing to do with intent.Really? :D