Intentional vs Unsportsmanlike

[eg-italy]

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".

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[JugglingReferee]

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Ok; but you'd also need to outline how to penalize a false double uninsportstentionalike.

Simple. Toss both coaches then go for pizza. Hey - works for me.