Intentional vs Unsportsmanlike
 

Forgive me if I have brought this up before.

Around 12 years ago FIBA changed the name of its intentional foul to an unsportsmanlike foul, the reasoning behind the change is that it is impossible for a referee (or anyone else) to judge someone's intentions, they can only judge the actions.

Given that the USA is (IMHO) a litigous (sp?) nation and that people are acutely aware of political correctness and their "rights" does anyone think that it is necessary or that it would be a good idea for the NFHS/NCAA/NBA to change the name of the "unsportsmanlike" foul?

I would be very interested in your opinions, and hopefully it won't just denegrate into a "metric FIBA is dumb" conversation :D

I don't think it's necessary. It's pretty well understood that "intent" is not required, by rule, for an intentional foul. Nor does the presence of intent preclude a common foul, by rule. Essentially, it's a discussion of semantics.

That said, just because it's not necessary or helpful doesn't mean it won't happen anyway.

Let us make something very clear. The NBA/NCAA/NFHS do not have all the same rules across the board. All organizations are run by different entities and have completely different focuses on the game of basketball. NCAA and NF have similar rules classifications but the nature of those levels is very different. So if the NBA creates a rule, there is no guarantee that the other levels will follow or want to follow. And the professionals are very different than amateur in legality of circumstances. I am also not a lawyer, but I have no idea what changing the name is going to mean from a legality standpoint. The name of the type of foul is not a consideration for what a foul is called. And if I am not mistaken, the NBA does not have any foul called an "intentional foul." Only NCAA and NF have such a classification of a foul.

There is not a one size fits all concern with rules as it relates to the legal system. The two things are not intertwined as you have suggested.

Peace

It's a game. That game has nothing to do with your thoughts on American society.

I agree with Oz...the name of the foul should be changed....or at least split into two: intentional and excessive.

By rules definition, intentional personal fouls under both NCAA and NFHS rulesets have nothing to do with unsporting conduct. The calling philosophy is that an intentional foul comprises taking away a natural "advantage" from the opponents.

I can't see any difference either in the FIBA stance of "judging the action" versus "judging the intention". They're exactly the same imo. You still have to <b>judge</b>" that the foul being committed has to meet the FIBA definition of an "unsporting" foul. That is no difference than what we have to do now for "intentional" fouls under both FED and NCAA rules.

Btw, I agree with BktBallRef. Your opening comments on American society were needless, extraneous, and irrelevant to what you wanted to discuss. You didn't want to get into FIBA bashing but you started off by "American Society" bashing instead. Pot..kettle...black.

Leave the guy alone, he can't help it.

We all know how small minded, provincial and ignorant the Aussies are. But we like them anyway.

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.

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.

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".

Link, or other reference please?

Yeah that's certainly true. Nowhere else on the planet do people observe political correctness with such a religious fervor. In fact everywhere else on the planet you can say what you want how you want when you want where you want freely & without reservation.

Yep, that's certainly true.

Yep.

Shut up.

See what I mean??!!!

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

I oughta sue his azz for that...

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.

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

Don't worry about it. Some here are just feeling a little touchy about the whole fall of the American Empire thing. ;)

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

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