Intentional Foul?
 

What is the philosophy here? Team A is leading by a few (1..2..3..or so). They are trying to avoid being fouled so they are passing the ball around and when they do dribble they try to avoid contact. A1 receives the ball, B1 runs at her to try and foul and A1 dribbles, arches her back to avoid a swipe by B1 and then B1 grabs the her jersey to get the foul call.

Shouldn't this either be possibly a no call (if B1 lets go right away) or an intentional foul?

Without actually seeing it, it looks like an X to me.

This is a “had to be there situation.” If the player only grabbed the jersey you have a clear case of an intentional foul by rule. If there was some other minor contact first, then you either have a foul or a no call.

Peace

Fouling at the end of the game is and has always been an accepted practice in the basketball community. Sure the player is attempting to "intentionally" foul the other player but it is not the intent of the rule to call it as such on these type of late game situations IMO. If a player just grabs the off. Players jersey and doesn't pull him to the floor or in an excessive manner than I am just taking a common foul. Calling this an intentional is being too pure and is not for the betterment of the game, IMO. By calling a play where a kid is trying to attempt to take a foul with no malice, you're detering him from committing a well accepted practice in the basketball community by being able to prolong the game and send a team to the FT line in hopes they will miss and the other team can have another possession.

I disagree. The strategy may be accepted (I have no problem with it), but what's also accepted is the player must be "playing the ball."

Accidentally, but briefly, grabbing the jersey as the arm swings through is one thing. I'd likely no-call it in a situation where the offense is trying to avoid the foul.

Actually holding on after that brief moment, however, constitutes an intentional foul as the defender has essentially dropped all pretense of playing the ball.

As Rut said, too, if there is contact prior to the jersey grab, a personal foul would be acceptable.

I also agree with this comment.

Peace

Disagree

2006-07 NFHS Basketball POE
4. Intentional Fouls
The committee continues to be concerned about how games end. While there has been some improvement in the application of the rule, there is still need for further understanding and enforcement. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy late in the game. There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly.

Additionally, in throw-in situations, fouling a player that is not involved in the play in any way (setting a screen, attempting to receive the in-bound pass, etc.) must be deemed intentional. Far too often, officials do not call fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria.

Oh, bullpucky!

Grabbing an opponent's shirt without playing the ball has <b>never</b> has been accepted at any level except in the NBA. <b>NEVER!</b>. And it sureashell IS the intent of the rule at amateur levels. Numerous POE's and AR's over the years at the high school and college level have been issued to tell us how the rulesmakers want it called. The practice as outlined above by yourself has NEVER been accepted in amateur basketball at any level.

Trying to adapt pro philosophies to other levels is completely wrong...especially when you don't really know what the philosophies are at the those other levels.

An accepted and often used strategy is to foul near the end of the game. If we start calling Intentional fouls on these plays, our careers will be very short. My rule of thumb is to recognize when a team is going to foul and get the first foul even if the contact isn't extremely severe. If we miss the first foul, every single time, the defense fouls harder and harder and harder until we blow the whistle. Don't let rough play thrive in our games.

Now when you have a foul off-ball (trying to foul the center who shoots 50%) then you have an easy intentional. Although, a coach shouldn't be so dumb to have bricklayer in during that point of the game.

I must be missing something, I do not know anywhere it is acceptable to grab someone's jersey at the NBA level. Actually they penalize fouls away from the ball very differently than other levels as well. I did not see any comments that directly talked about the NBA.

Peace

Bear hugs, jersey grabs, two handed pushes in the back; these are intentional fouls at any point in the game, especially at the end. While I agree you should get the first foul to prevent most of these, another way of preventing them is to call the intentional when it's warranted.
I'm ok with this as long as the offense isn't trying to avoid the foul. If the ball handler is just waiting for the whistle, give it to him. Otherwise, don't give the defense a free clock stoppage. It's not fair to the offense.

The NFHS has taken the opposite position. That governing body does not want an official to call a foul on minor contact that would not have been deemed a foul earlier in the game just because the team is now trying to foul late in the game.

Please read and give some thought to the following:
2006-07 POINTS OF EMPHASIS
5. Rules Enforcement and Proper Use of Signals. The committee has seen a movement away from the consistent application of rule enforcement and use of approved mechanics/signals.
A. Rules Enforcement. Officials need to be aware that personal interpretations of the rules have a negative impact on the game. The rules are written to provide a balance between offense and defense, minimize risks to participants, promote the sound tradition of the game and promote fair play. Individual philosophies and deviations from the rules as written negatively impact the basic fundamentals and tenants of the rules. Officials must be consistent in the application of all rules, including:
• Contact – Contact that is not considered a foul early in the game should not be considered a foul late in the game simply because a team "wants" to foul.

Foul Early, Foul Often ...
 

From my pregame conference with myn partner:

Last Two Minutes
We’re not calling anything in the last two minutes if we haven’t already called it earlier in the game, unless it’s so blatant that it can’t be ignored. We don’t want our first illegal screen to be called with 30 seconds left in the game; but if the illegal screen puts a player into the first row of the bleachers, then we have to call it. 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. End of game strategic fouls: If the winning team is just holding the ball and is willing to take the free throws, 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.

I'm sure you don't mean you let "blatant" stuff go early in the game. Technically (no pun intended), that's the inference from your statement.

Actually, you do the inferring from what his statement implies. ;)

BTW I don't concur that his statement implies what you think.