The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 02:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 329
Send a message via Yahoo to drinkeii
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!
__________________
David A. Rinke II
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 02:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,108
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 02:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 185
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 02:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 03:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,108
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".
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 03:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 329
Send a message via Yahoo to drinkeii
Quote:
Originally posted by Larks
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.
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?
__________________
David A. Rinke II
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 03:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Wisconsin
Posts: 1,069
Quote:
Originally posted by Larks

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]
LARKS

I believe you are referring to a Flagrant Personal Fouls.
__________________
"Stay in the game!"
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 03:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,108
Agreed

Quote:
Originally posted by williebfree
Quote:
Originally posted by Larks

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".
LARKS

I believe you are referring to a Flagrant Personal Fouls. [/B]
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!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 04:30pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
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.
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.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 05:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Tweed Heads, NSW, Australia
Posts: 559
Exclamation 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.
__________________
Duane Galle
P.s. I'm a FIBA referee - so all my posts are metric

Visit www.geocities.com/oz_referee
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 10, 2001, 10:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 329
Send a message via Yahoo to drinkeii
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
__________________
David A. Rinke II
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 11, 2001, 12:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 11, 2001, 12:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Re: Agreed

Quote:
Originally posted by Larks
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!
Welcome to the board rook!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 11, 2001, 01:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 90
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.
__________________
eli roe
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Dec 11, 2001, 01:56am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 90
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.
__________________
eli roe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1