A serious argument can be made for an intentional foul based upon the following which appeared in the rules book two seasons ago. The fouled player was airborne, was attempting a lay-up, and had his leg clipped by an opponent running in from behind. The player attempting to score was certainly in a vulnerable position. The debate will hinge upon whether the contact was excessive or not.

MEN'S AND WOMEN'S COMMITTEE ACTIONS FOR 2006-07 BR-19

Major Concern for Men

Airborne Player/Excessive or Severe Contact. When a player is airborne
attempting a lay-up, any excessive contact by an opponent shall be an
intentional personal foul, even when the opponent is legitimately attempting
to play either the ball or the player. When the contact is severe, a flagrant
personal foul shall be assessed.
The airborne player is in a position of vulnerability and any contact that
is excessive or severe shall be penalized.

Incorrect...he got in front of him, a long way from LGP, but still in front of him. He didn't run into his backside. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't be intentional based on that....just getting the facts straight.

While it had a very visible effect, the contact was actually quite minimal. It did catch the shooter at an awkward time but was the contact excessive? I didn't think so. Far more contact is the norm on a lot of layups.