We don't need no stinkin' new rules - or do we?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Meet you at Hooters, and I'll give you some.

The guys around here refer to that place as The Dollar Store.

[BillyMac]

From Mark Dexter: "Maybe we could get an official signal for a "hard foul." Penalized the same as an intentional is now, but saving us the grief of having to explain to the coach/player why they're being called for an intentional foul when there was no intent or premeditation."

We've been instructed by our local interpreter to verbalize "hard foul", loudly, to the table when reporting a hard foul intentional foul.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So you'd have two different fouls, with two different names, with exactly the same penalty?

You mean like a hold and a push, or a hand check and illegal contact? Different names same penalties.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From Mark Dexter: "Maybe we could get an official signal for a "hard foul." Penalized the same as an intentional is now, but saving us the grief of having to explain to the coach/player why they're being called for an intentional foul when there was no intent or premeditation."

We've been instructed by our local interpreter to verbalize "hard foul", loudly, to the table when reporting a hard foul intentional foul.

The problem with calling this a "hard foul" is the fact that all intentional fouls are not hard in nature. There are fouls that a defender just grabs someone and not a very violent outcome is a result. I would disagree in using that terminology. Then coaches would say, “That was not a hard foul at all.”

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by w_sohl

You mean like a hold and a push, or a hand check and illegal contact? Different names same penalties.

Those are personal fouls. I'm not saying I'm completely averse to the idea, but I'm not sure "flagrant 1" is the best term to use. It carries too many connotations; I think a lot of officials will be slow to call it based on terminology alone; just like the current "intentional foul."
Personally, I like "hard foul," "excessive foul," or even "intensive foul." Lumping them in with "intentional foul" while maintaining separate terms may not be a bad idea; it would have to grow on me.

[BillyMac]

From JRutledge: "The problem with calling this a "hard foul" is the fact that all intentional fouls are not hard in nature. There are fouls that a defender just grabs someone and not a very violent outcome is a result. I would disagree in using that terminology. Then coaches would say, “That was not a hard foul at all.”

We have been told to only verbalize "Hard foul" to the table when the intentional foul is a result of excessive contact. When excessive contact occurs, we make the intentional foul signal as a preliminary signal at the spot of the foul, move to the table, report the foul using the intentional foul signal, and verbalize "Hard foul". For other types of intentional fouls, we do not say "Hard foul", but rather we verbalize "Intentional foul".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We have been told to only verbalize "Hard foul" to the table when the intentional foul is a result of excessive contact. When excessive contact occurs, we make the intentional foul signal as a preliminary signal at the spot of the foul, move to the table, report the foul using the intentional foul signal, and verbalize "Hard foul". For other types of intentional fouls, we do not say "Hard foul", but rather we verbalize "Intentional foul".

Who is the "we" you are referring to?

Peace

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The problem with calling this a "hard foul" is the fact that all intentional fouls are not hard in nature. There are fouls that a defender just grabs someone and not a very violent outcome is a result. I would disagree in using that terminology. Then coaches would say, “That was not a hard foul at all.”

Peace

Jeff, the point is that there are now two different types of fouls that have one name, one signal and one penalty, and it can be difficult for coaches to comprehend that concept. It would be nice to have two different names for the types of fouls with two different signals, even if the penalty was the same. Use intentional foul with the X for the not-hard fouls that are just to stop the clock, or just to take away an advantage -- grabbing the jersey, the bear hug, the shove in the back. THen have a different signal that would mean an "Excessive Foul" or a "Hard Foul" which would apply to the fouls that weren't necessarily intentional, but were just excessive contact. The penalties could be the same for both, just as the penalties are the same for the different kinds of personal fouls. THis would be a level of foul between yr basic average every day foul, and the technical and flagrant foul. I think it's a really good idea, myself.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From Mark Dexter: "Maybe we could get an official signal for a "hard foul." Penalized the same as an intentional is now, but saving us the grief of having to explain to the coach/player why they're being called for an intentional foul when there was no intent or premeditation."

We've been instructed by our local interpreter to verbalize "hard foul", loudly, to the table when reporting a hard foul intentional foul.

That works, although sometimes the sooner you get it out, the better.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Jeff, the point is that there are now two different types of fouls that have one name, one signal and one penalty, and it can be difficult for coaches to comprehend that concept. It would be nice to have two different names for the types of fouls with two different signals, even if the penalty was the same. Use intentional foul with the X for the not-hard fouls that are just to stop the clock, or just to take away an advantage -- grabbing the jersey, the bear hug, the shove in the back. THen have a different signal that would mean an "Excessive Foul" or a "Hard Foul" which would apply to the fouls that weren't necessarily intentional, but were just excessive contact. The penalties could be the same for both, just as the penalties are the same for the different kinds of personal fouls. THis would be a level of foul between yr basic average every day foul, and the technical and flagrant foul. I think it's a really good idea, myself.

Disagree completely. There's absolutely no need to change what we're using now. The biggest problem is that some people, including some officials, just don't understand the present terminology being used. There's only one element needed for an intentional foul and it's been defined the same way in the rules forever to include that single element. A foul is deemed intentional if it neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Period. All you are doing now is talking about the different ways that somebody can do exactly that--illegally take away an opponent's obvious advantage. If you break it down further, as you suggest, then imo all you're gonna do is just confuse everybody further also. Whether it's excessive contact, reaching out and grabbing an arm or just giving a tug on the shirt, all of these situations are doing the exact same thing that is already defined in the rule book as being an intentional foul-- illegally taking an obvious advantage away from another player. That makes them all intentional fouls under the current rule book definition. All adding further language would do is just further confuse people.

You and the others are overthinking this to death imo.

[BillyMac]

From JRutledge: "Who is the "we" you are referring to?"

Sorry. The "we" I am referring to is our local IAABO board, and we received these instructions from our local interpreter. I believe that all of the local IAABO boards in our state, Connecticut, have received the same instructions.

All of our Connecticut IAABO boards try to stay on the same page in terms of mechanics and interpretations, especially when they may vary with general NFHS guidelines or international IAABO guidelines. For example, the following were our "Connecticut mechanics" for the 2006-07 season: Arms extended not closely guarded signal. Point to floor for two-point field goal try. No long switches when foul is called in the backcourt and there is no change of possession or direction. Team members are not allowed to congregate at midcourt during introductions. Coaching Box must be marked. If home coach and/or home management refuse to designate coaching box with tape, the home team will not use a coaching box for that game. However, the visiting team will be allowed a coaching box. Notify Board Secretary or Commissioner the next day. Note that these do not fully follow either NFHS or IAABO mechanics guidelines.

[sseltser]

Jurassic,

The idea for new names is because players and coaches, contrary to popular belief , don't really read the rule book() so they don't know what NFHS says an intentional foul is. They think (and adamantly at that) that an intentional foul must have some sort of 'intent.'

The rule says excessive contact without intent to foul can also be deemed intentional. This past sentence is self-contradicting in many of the posters eyes, so that is the reason for bringing up new terminology to lighten the confusion.

BTW, I like all the ideas, but I think just explaining to the coach each time why its intentional will suffice until I am told to do otherwise.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by sseltser

1)The idea for new names is because players and coaches, contrary to popular belief , don't really read the rule book() so they don't know what NFHS says an intentional foul is. They think (and adamantly at that) that an intentional foul must have some sort of 'intent.'

2)The rule says excessive contact without intent to foul can also be deemed intentional. This past sentence is self-contradicting in many of the posters eyes, so that is the reason for bringing up new terminology to lighten the confusion.

1) Yup, and that's why they question every single intentional foul usually. And all you have to do is tell them that the foul illegally took an advantage away from their opponent. End of explanation, unless you want to add how the advantage was illegally taken away--i.e. excessive contact, grabbing an arm or shirt, not playing the ball, etc.

2) I disagree completely that it's self-contradictory. An intentional foul is defined as neutralizing an opponent's advantageous position. Excessive contact is simply just one way of doing that.

The terminology that we've got now is fine. The understanding of that terminology obviously isn't.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I believe that all of the local IAABO boards in our state, Connecticut, have received the same instructions.

To my knowledge, this isn't a Bd. 8 mechanic.

[BillyMac]

From BillyMac: "We've been instructed by our local interpreter to verbalize "hard foul", loudly, to the table when reporting a hard foul intentional foul" and "we received these instructions from our local interpreter. I believe that all of the local IAABO boards in our state, Connecticut, have received the same instructions".

From Mark Dexter: "To my knowledge, this isn't a Bd. 8 mechanic".

To Mark Dexter: I believe that this mechanic was introduced about twelve to fifteen years ago. It was wrong of me to assume that our local board mechanic was also a statewide mechanic. For the past several years, anytime our local board varies from any official NFHS or IAABO guidelines, our interpreters have preceeded their explanations with something like "At XXXXday's meeting, all the Connecticut interpreters have decided to ...". Maybe we weren't acting in such a uniform manner back then. Sorry.