The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 08:27am
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,690
I don't think it's necessary to change, and I don't honestly think it's that big a deal. But we've certainly had discussions here on the forum about the "semantics" of the intentional foul, and we've often dealt with new officials who have been confused by the the name. I don't think it would hurt anything to change the intentional foul to an "excessive foul" or something like that.

Secondly, I don't see any America-bashing in Oz's post. Does anybody seriously deny that America is a highly litigious society? We invented the "frivolous lawsuit", for crying out loud. Does anybody deny that we live in a society where there is increasing pressure to use "politically correct" terms and conform to certain opinions on sensitive topics? Obviously, this is not the main topic of this thread, and I also agree with Jurassic that Oz's comments were unnecessary; but I honestly think the "America-bashing" comments are misdirected. JMO
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 08:53am
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I don't think it's necessary to change, and I don't honestly think it's that big a deal. But we've certainly had discussions here on the forum about the "semantics" of the intentional foul, and we've often dealt with new officials who have been confused by the the name. I don't think it would hurt anything to change the intentional foul to an "excessive foul" or something like that.

Secondly, I don't see any America-bashing in Oz's post. Does anybody seriously deny that America is a highly litigious society? We invented the "frivolous lawsuit", for crying out loud. Does anybody deny that we live in a society where there is increasing pressure to use "politically correct" terms and conform to certain opinions on sensitive topics? Obviously, this is not the main topic of this thread, and I also agree with Jurassic that Oz's comments were unnecessary; but I honestly think the "America-bashing" comments are misdirected. JMO
True story:

My friend Joanne went to NYS to do some skiing a few years back.

This particular hill had two small runs merge to a large run for the second half of the run. (Picture a "Y" spread out over a hill.)

Joanne is an accomplished skier, and on one of her runs, when merging with the other section, had a unaccomplished skier "ski into her". Joanne went down like a brick, she says. The other skier, as it turns out, is from NYS. Not knowing Joanne is Canadian, and therefore seemingly not knowing that suing would never enter Joanne's mind, the NYS skier almost begged Joanne to "please don't sue me". She was happy when Joanne got up, and skied down the rest of the hill.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 09:27am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Obviously, this is not the main topic of this thread, and I also agree with Jurassic that Oz's comments were unnecessary.....
That was basically the point that Tony made. The comments had nothing to do with the difference between basketball foul definitions. Fwiw , I just agreed with Tony.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 09:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Italy
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
I don't think it's necessary to change, and I don't honestly think it's that big a deal. But we've certainly had discussions here on the forum about the "semantics" of the intentional foul, and we've often dealt with new officials who have been confused by the the name. I don't think it would hurt anything to change the intentional foul to an "excessive foul" or something like that.
My experience (FIBA, of course) is that the new name helped somewhat in getting the judgment correct and in cutting down complaints by coaches and fans.

There's still people (also coaches) who ask for "fallo intenzionale" instead of "antisportivo" (this is the Italian translation of unsportsmanlike). But there's people (also coaches) who don't understand the "over and back" rule which changed much more than 12 years ago to become more similar to the USA one, so I guess it's impossible that a habit vanishes completely.

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".
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 10:21am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by eg-italy
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".
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 10:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Italy
Posts: 406
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 10:56am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 01:21pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,558
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 04:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Italy
Posts: 406
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 05:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,050
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 05:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Italy
Posts: 406
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 07:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,050
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 06:03pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,558
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon May 12, 2008, 07:17pm
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Thumbs up

Here's the solution. Call them "uninsportstentionalike" fouls. There - that should satisfy everyone.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue May 13, 2008, 05:29am
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Here's the solution. Call them "uninsportstentionalike" fouls. There - that should satisfy everyone.
Ok; but you'd also need to outline how to penalize a false double uninsportstentionalike.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unsportsmanlike? Rev.Ref63 Basketball 210 Tue Dec 04, 2007 04:31pm
unsportsmanlike ? _Bruno_ Baseball 32 Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:26pm
Unsportsmanlike ? NFL parepat Football 2 Tue Jan 24, 2006 08:26am
Unsportsmanlike? canuckrefguy Basketball 13 Sun Dec 11, 2005 05:15pm
Unsportsmanlike? Grail Basketball 31 Fri Nov 19, 2004 09:01am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1