Intentional Foul?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why? What if it happens to be the first illegal screen of that type in the game? And what if it's illegal by just grabbing the shirt of the screenee instead of making heavy contact? Are you really advocating ignoring something that gives the opposing a definite illegal advantage? How can you claim consistency if there was nothing that happened previously in that game to be consistent with?

Sorry, jmo but that's still completely ridiculous.

Still missing the whole point and will probably keep missing it. Pretty sad, its not that difficult.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Still missing the whole point and will probably keep missing it. Pretty sad, its not that difficult.

Wish this petty sniping would just go away....sometimes it's funny but most times it's childish.

[BillyMac]

A portion of my revised pregame conference checklist:

Consistency
Let’s see if we can call the same game. Be consistent with each other. Let’s try to remember what we’ve called earlier in the game, and what we haven’t called. Be consistent with what has already happened in the game.

Last Two Minutes
Near the end of the game, be aware of coaches calling time-outs and be sure to inform them after they have used all their time outs. Let’s not put the whistles away in the last two minutes: That wouldn’t be consistent with the way we’ve been calling the game. If the game dictates it, let the players win or lose the game at the line. We don’t want to be the ones who decide the game by ignoring obvious fouls just to get the game over. If the winning team is just holding the ball and is willing to take the free throws after strategic fouls, then let’s call the foul immediately, so the ballhandler doesn’t get hit harder to draw a whistle. Let’s make sure there is a play on the ball by the defense. If there’s no play on the ball, if the defense grabs the jersey, or pushes from behind, or bear hugs the offensive player, we should consider an intentional foul. These are not basketball plays and should be penalized as intentional.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Wish this petty sniping would just go away....sometimes it's funny but most times it's childish.

How predictable can you be?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

How predictable can you be?

More petty sniping?

How childish.

[Texas Aggie]

There is a right way and a wrong way to foul.

I don't care what anyone says. This is truly a stupid comment. There's a right way and a wrong way to commit a rules infraction? Huh? Is there a right way and wrong way to travel? Is there a right way and wrong way to commit a technical foul? To get ejected?

[Adam]

Like it or not, Aggie, fouling is an accepted strategy.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I don't care what anyone says. This is truly a stupid comment. There's a right way and a wrong way to commit a rules infraction? Huh? Is there a right way and wrong way to travel? Is there a right way and wrong way to commit a technical foul? To get ejected?

Quite the contrary. When a team "needs" to foul, the right way to foul is to get a common foul and only a common foul. The wrong way to foul is to get an intentional (or flagrant) foul. A team that is willing to trade FT's for a possession has that option...if they commit the right type of foul.

[Texas Aggie]

fouling is an accepted strategy

I'm asking you and the committee: what other rules infractions are acceptable and how is their acceptance shown?

If fouling is the only acceptable infraction, why is it penalized at all? I thought the idea of a penalty was deterrence.

Step back from everything you know about basketball and think about this. What other rule set do you know of that explicitly says committing a specific rules infraction is "acceptable?"

The other problem is that the game has changed drastically from the time when fouling to stop the clock started. Not only is the game much more physical, we have a three point line where the team that fouls can in theory trade 3 points for 2, and the other team has no ability to change that. Thus you have a clear advantage gained by a team intentionally committing a rules infraction. How exactly is that any different than cheating?

Finally, this allowance is ruining the game. Its terrible that games are taking 20 minutes to finish the last 2-3 clock minutes. When I played, you might foul in the last 30-45 seconds if you were down by 3 or less. Now, teams start fouling down 15 with 3 minutes left. There's nothing you can say that would make me believe that this makes the game better.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Finally, this allowance is ruining the game. Its terrible that games are taking 20 minutes to finish the last 2-3 clock minutes. When I played, you might foul in the last 30-45 seconds if you were down by 3 or less. Now, teams start fouling down 15 with 3 minutes left. There's nothing you can say that would make me believe that this makes the game better.

While it's nice to know mine isn't the only Quixotic quest around here , I have to ask; how many times do you see this? I don't recall ever seeing it that bad.

Every single time I've seen it, it either worked or they gave up after about 3 or 4 fouls. When it worked, it only took 3 or 4 fouls as the game was now close enough that fouling was no longer the appropriate strategy.

It's not only end-of-game situations where it's accepted, either. Many coaches will prefer their defenders foul a shooter rather than give up an easy layup, in some situations. That said, most good coaches I've seen simply have their kids get more agressive in attacking the ball. The added risk leads to more fouls, but kids take risks all the time and end up committing infractions.

Football has two examples, at least, that I can think of. Intentional safety and intentional delay of game penalties.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Football has two examples, at least, that I can think of. Intentional safety and intentional delay of game penalties.

Even a defensive holding penalty is sometimes said to be a "smart penalty". If the corner is definitely beat with no help, he can grab the jersey and give up 5 yards and a 1st down, instead of a touchdown. Not exactly the same, but close maybe.

[Camron Rust]

How about an intentional walk in baseball? Seems very similar in principle.