If you hadn't have went back and added that, I woulda. :D

You need to ask yourself, "What would a Canadian skiier do?"

No, there's not any difference in philosophy, judging from what I read here on the topic. An U foul is when the contact is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or is excessive. A recent interpretation rules U any foul committed before the official hands the ball for a throw in (in FIBA a contact foul can be committed even during a dead ball and doesn't count as T), for example an illegal screen.

The penalty is different, actually: 2 FT in general, only one FT if the offended player scores a basket (with a continuous motion etc.), or 3 FT if the offended player was attempting a three pointer and did not score. After the FT, possession at the division line for the offended team.

At first glance, I'd be in favor of this change at the NFHS level. An intentional personal would be preferable, I think, to a technical, for a contact foul on play immediately prior to a throwin starting or immediately following a basket.

This thread is going downhill fast, aint it?

The only issue I have with the name "intentional foul" is that the NBA has that lame-o flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 thing. And some times the NBA wannabes get hung up on the language. Of course, the game is usually better after I unload the offending wannabe for being stupid ;)

You might not be aware of this. But the usage of the term "unsportsmanlike foul" in NF rules across the board in other sports is usually a sign or indicator for non-contact fouls or penalties. And in basketball an unsportsmanlike penalty is a technical foul. So the usage of this term is already in use.

Peace

Indeed I said that the term "unsportsmanlike" might not be appropriate; but I'm convinced that "intentional" isn't either.

Ciao

As someone who has used both NCAA and FIBA rules over the last few years, it seems to me that there no perfect terminology. Yes I have called intentional fouls where the player had no intent (in NCAA rules). Yet I also called unsportsmanlike fouls in FIBA where nothing unsportsmanlike happened.
For example a player in the open court has a clear path to the basket so they foul him to stop the layup; that is no an "unsportsmanlike" act in my book but I call it a unsportsmanlike foul.

Maybe both types should be included? Nah, we've got enough types of fouls as it is.

Just any foul in this situation? I believe that up to now the interpretation is to call a U only if contact is either excessive or not a "basketball play" (a push in the back, for example). If they foul that player on the arm and the contact is not excessive, why should this be a U?

Ciao

And we have had that debate here several times. Unless the NF or NCAA decides to change the terminology then it is not going to change.

But that has little or nothing to do with the legal system in any way.

Peace

Here's the solution. Call them "uninsportstentionalike" fouls. There - that should satisfy everyone. :)

You're right eg, I kind of rushed that post and omitted to mention a foul where there is no intent to play the ball. In that situation, an unsportsmanlike is called.

I think the term "intentional" needs to be changed (at least in fed and NCAA), but not to "unsporting" or "unsportsmanlike." I've said this a hundred times on here, but its absolutely stupid to have a term (intentional) that the rules committee says doesn't really mean what the term actually means or is used in ordinary language. To me its like the committee saying, "in our rules, we'll call Saturday Tuesday."

We have "common" fouls; I just wonder if it would be appropriate to call what is now an intentional foul an "uncommon" foul.

First off let me appologise if anyone took any of my comments as American-bashing. I was simply trying to state that society has an impact on basketball (or any other sport).

One of the main reasons that the name of this rule was changed in FIBA was due to the concept of fouling at the end of the game to stop the clock. While this is certinaly an intentional act, it is not an intentional foul (and is now not an unsportsmanlike foul).

While the choice of the name of the foul may not have any legal or otherwise bearing, it does have an impact on perception....


Anyway, gotta go teach a geography class......so forgive me if this thread is poorly phrased :D