hmmm...I dunno, seems like only kicking includes the word "intentionally". I think all the others only allow us to judge the act, not the intent.

Aren't you judging the intent of the act re: disconcertion and the throw-in and return on-bounds delays?

Not disconcertion, except for when a player tries to fake an opponent into violating. Intent needed there I believe.

The second one maybe, although I doubt it...I can't even find it in the rule book. Which rule is it? Now I'm worried I'll see it on a test ('cause I know I won't see it in real life...)

1) R9-3-3--leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason. You gotta judge "intent" on that one.
2)R10-3- purposely and/or deceitfully returning after being legally OOB. Again, gotta judge "intent" on that one too imo.

Yeah, the first one I had. I was focussing on violations, but you're right there are T's that involve reading intent.

Thanks for the references btw :)

Smart azz.:D

That wasn't for your benefit, which you damnwell knew.

When a player gets hammered as he tries to release the ball we must judge whether his intent was to shoot or to pass. In this case there is no end result to see. Furthermore, the intent and the end result of the play may have nothing to do with each other. A1 throws a long alley-oop intended for A2, but it goes into the basket.

Not really. You just look at what was happening at the time of the foul, where the ball ends up, etc... Anyway we're discussing violations which are (usually) much more black & white. No argument from me on that. Just be consistent. errr....if it's from behind the 3 pt arc it's 3 pts. Otherwise it's 2 pts. No intent at all.

Geeze, try to be polite and see what happens...??

The point was this rule is worded so that judging intent is not part of the equation, with good reason. With other rules, this is not always possible.

Say what?:confused:

You can't see if the end result was a dribble or a pass? Let me help you out. If it ends up being thrown or batted to another player, it's a pass. Sez so right in NFHS rule 4-31. That's the end result. And all you have to do to <b>see</b> the <b>end</b> result is to let the resulting play <b>end</b>.

What rule?

If you're talking about the definition of a "dribble", then I <b>still</b> completely disagree with you. You have to judge whether the dribbler intended to pass or dribble a second time after he ended his first dribble.

You're still completely ignoring the <b>fact</b> that the definitions of both a "dribble" and a "pass" allow for both to be started the exact same way--throwing or batting the ball.

JR apparently missed a couple of posts where we went off on another tangent about judging intent.

I have not ignored anything. The question here is when one can determine whether a dribble is a dribble. You say not until it is touched again, even though this is not documented. I disagree. I think we have about said it all.

With very many of the rules intent is not a factor.

The dribbling rule is one of them. If it went your way it would be illegal, by rule, to bounce pass after ending a dribble. Period.

I'm going to try to paint one more picture.

A1 and B1 isolated on one side of the court. The game is on tv, and no one else is even in the picture. A1 drives baseline and pulls up to shoot. B1 hustles to contest the shot, but slips and falls. A1 sees a clear path to the basket and momentarily loses his mind. He pushes the ball straight down to the floorand starts to take a step to the goal. Then, he quickly realizes his mistake, throws up his hands, turns his back, and yells, "Oh, shucks!" Am I the only one here that thinks this is a violation?