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.

That's not at all what is implied by BillyMac's statement. His statement says, "IF we haven't called it yet, THEN we won't call it now." The statement doesn't make any claim about what has or has not actually been called earlier in the game.

And that's exactly why it's a stoopid statement......

It might NOT have happened earlier in the game but Billy is saying not to call it anyway.

That's not what he is saying. In fact he fully eloborated on what he meant in his post. I believe this is what politicians and celebrities refer to when they say they were quoted out of context.

Yo, Bad News...

Why is it wrong to call an illegal screen in the last 30 seconds of a game if that illegal screen happened to be the <b>FIRST</b> illegal one set in that game? 'Splain that to me.

If you haven't called goaltending until the last 30 seconds, does that mean that you're not supposed to call it then?

JR, like it or not I heard the same philosophy being expoused during my camp-filled summer and each one of the camps I attended were camps where supervisors were looking to hire folks.

In the last 2 minutes they want calls that are obvious to everyone. Goaltendings tend to be obvious. Illegal screens sometimes aren't. In one camp game I called Team Control foul in the last minute of a tie game when a player shoved an off-ball defender in the back with 2 hands. In post game from the observer I was told I probably should have stayed away from that call b/c I was the only one who saw it.

I heard the pretty much the same thing when it came to illegal screens. If it's on the primary defender or a defender 1 pass away from the ball, that would be an obvious call. But if it's on the opposite of the court and has no immediate bearing on the play then they want you to lay off.

Because over the course of 31 minutes and 30 seconds, there have undoubtedly been dozens of borderline screens. If you haven't called any of those, then you better not call one now. If you've judged all those previous borderline screens to be incidental, then anything that's even close is going to be incidental.

If, on the other hand, you've let all the borderline screens go and then in the last 30 seconds, you get a guy who throws a great football block and the defender ends up on the floor 15 feet away, that's one that you can grab.

Hey badnewsref. Haven't talked to you in a while.

I understand the philosophy here but its hard for me to live with. Why should you not call a play that you would have called at any other point in the game.

There is a good quote that I write everywhere I go and it is: "players decide the outcome of games through legal actions, not illegal actions which an official chooses to ignore."

I do agree with the principle of being careful on screens way away from the ball.

Sigh......

Reading is fundamental. I'm not talking about borderline, incidental crap and believe it or not I actually do have a basic understanding of what call consistency is. I'm talking about a situation where an obvious foul or violation has simply not come up in the game yet. Taking Billy's philosophy literally, you couldn't call that obvious foul or violation in the last 30 seconds if it hadn't happened before. That was my point. Iow, I don't think that you can make an all-encompassing statement like Billy made that is viable for <b>ALL</b> situations.

Instead of me answering News' post, put me down as agreeing with the above. The only addition/clarification might be that screens away from the ball still have to adjudicated by advantage/disadvantage, not ignored. If that off-ball illegal screen breaks someone open for a clear path to the hole and an easy pass for 2, you gotta call it.

Then we're in complete agreement. Part of Billy's comments (and mine, in my last post) state that if the foul is obvious, you call it. The reason I was talking about borderline/incidental calls was that they happen all the time during the game; and we don't call them. It would not be consistent (since you brought up "call consistency" :) ) to call a similar play at a point in the game where the teams cannot adjust.

Reading is fundamental. :D You stopped reading Billy's comments at the semi-colon. If you read the entire sentence -- "but if it puts somebody in the stands. . ." -- you can see that your last comment above is simply not true.

:rolleyes:

Those are NOT the plays anyone is referring to when they're saying don't call anything in the last 2 minutes that hasn't been called all game. The statement is a single-statement summary that is used to remind everyone to not change what you've been calling or not calling all game in the last 2 minutes without a 2 hour discussion. It has no bearing on calling something significant that hasn't previously occurred.

No, I sureasheck didn't ignore the last part of Billy's comments. It just wasn't...and isn't....relevant to the point I was trying to make imo.

You can have a play that hasn't taken place before in the game and is also <b>not</b> blatant in any way...but the play <b>does</b> give one team a definite unfair advantage. Just because that type of illegal play hasn't been made to now doesn't mean that you ignore it because it hasn't been called before, As I said, that was my point. That broad statement of Billy's may cover <b>most</b> possibilities but it does not cover <b>all</b> possibilities.

Better Wording Leads To Better Communication ...
 

Thanks for the input, both the constructive criticism, and those that agreed with me.

Let me elaborate. If the first play involving swinging elbows, or goaltending, or basket interference, or an intentional foul, etc., happens in the last thirty seconds of the game, again, it's the first time, neither my partner, or I , have even considered making these calls in the first 31:30, then we're calling it.

However, if both teams have been running motion offenses, and the screens we've seen in the first 31:30 have not been the best screens we've ever seen, nor have they been the worst screens that we've ever seen, in fact both my partner, and I, have deemed that these screens, while possibly, by the book, illegal, have not really put the opponents at any disadvantage, then we're not suddenly going to change our philosophy in the last thirty seconds and call, what we have passed on the rest of the game, an illegal screen, unless it puts the opponents at a bigger disadvantage then the "borderline" screens that we've seen in the past 31:30 that we've passed on.

Now, how can I word this in my pregame to make sure my partner understands what I mean?

Here's the way I have it worded now: " 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."

How can I word it better?

You can't. It says exactly what you mean, and it's exactly the way you should be calling the game.

Why? What if it happens to be the <b>first</b> 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.

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

Revised Pregame Card ...
 

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.

How predictable can you be?

More petty sniping?

How childish.:rolleyes:

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?

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

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.

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.

While it's nice to know mine isn't the only Quixotic quest around here :D, 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.

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.

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