Intentional vs Unsportsmanlike

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

I oughta sue his azz for that...

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

See what I mean??!!!

If I was posting this from Beijing you would have left me alone!

I oughta sue his azz for that...

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

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It sounds like that there isn't really that much difference between the concept in all rulesets, except for maybe the "title" and the penalty.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

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.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

This thread is going downhill fast, aint it?

[Back In The Saddle]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

Perhaps the adjective "unsportsmanlike" is not the best choice, but I think that "intentional" conveys a meaning which is not intended by the modern interpretation of the rule (Fed, NCAA or FIBA): judge the action, not the intention, as others have said. It's difficult to explain to someone, who in general doesn't agree with officials' decisions (a coach, for example ), that we ruled a contact "intentional" without guessing at the player's intention or that a deliberate common foul is not "intentional".

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

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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

Ciao

[Jay R]

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.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by Jay R

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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

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

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

[Mark Padgett]

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

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

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

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.

[Texas Aggie]

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.

[Oz Referee]

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