Touch foul to stop clock

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I know that you said that your rec league was using NCAA rules, but the following from last season's NFHS Points of Emphasis in the back of the rules book is excellent advice. I've put the two key points in red for you.

4. Intentional Fouls. The committee continues to be concerned about how games end. While there has been some improvement in the application of the rule, there is still need for further understanding and enforcement. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.
Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly.
Additionally, in throw-in situations, fouling a player that is not involved in the play in any way (setting a screen, attempting to receive the in-bound pass, etc. ) must be deemed intentional. Far too often, officials do not call fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria.

5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules. Officials must be consistent in the application of all rules, including:
• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team "wants" to foul. Conversely, contact that is deemed intentional late in the game should likewise be called intentional early in the game.

The point, Philz, is that you needed to call that touch foul, and if it's not a basketball play, call it an intentional. If they complain, you tell that it's just the way it's gonna be. If they're fouling to stop the clock, and they don't use legitimate means, it's an intention. I"d say barely touching the shorts falls into that category.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The point, Philz, is that you needed to call that touch foul, and if it's not a basketball play, call it an intentional.

I'm not sure that's the point, to be honest. Would that play have been a foul -- or an intentional foul -- in the first quarter? I doubt it. Merely brushing the shorts is never a foul, unless the offense is just standing there, waiting to take the foul.

I think the point is, call what's there. If there's contact during a regular "basketball play" that impedes the offensive player, it's a common foul. If not, it's nothing. If the defender comes back and mugs somebody or grabs and pulls the jersey, it's an intentional foul.

I can't envision a case where I'd call a foul for barely touching a player's shorts (unless, as I said, the offensive player was simply waiting to be fouled).

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I'm not sure that's the point, to be honest. Would that play have been a foul -- or an intentional foul -- in the first quarter? I doubt it. Merely brushing the shorts is never a foul, unless the offense is just standing there, waiting to take the foul.

I think the point is, call what's there. If there's contact during a regular "basketball play" that impedes the offensive player, it's a common foul. If not, it's nothing. If the defender comes back and mugs somebody or grabs and pulls the jersey, it's an intentional foul.

I can't envision a case where I'd call a foul for barely touching a player's shorts (unless, as I said, the offensive player was simply waiting to be fouled).

Okay, maybe I mis read Nevada's post. But, yea, it would be an intentional foul in the first half. contact designed to stop the clock. That's an intentional regarless of the severity of the contact, and regardless of the time in the game. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

Are we talking about apricots now?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

The point, Philz, is that you needed to call that touch foul, and if it's not a basketball play, call it an intentional. If they complain, you tell that it's just the way it's gonna be. If they're fouling to stop the clock, and they don't use legitimate means, it's an intention. I"d say barely touching the shorts falls into that category.

No, my point was exactly the opposite. If he would not have called that light touch on the shorts a foul in the first quarter and would have instead allowed the team to have a 3 on 1 fastbreak, then he should also ignore the contact in the final minutes of the game.

Do not reward a team for doing something illegal.