Duke/So IL intentional Foul call

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Ok.

4-19-3
Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act.

High school rule:
4-19-3 "A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent."

The very next sentence after your quote.

Not sure if NCAA has the same wording.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

High school rule:
4-19-3 "A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent."

The very next sentence after your quote.

Not sure if NCAA has the same wording.

Right, but I wouldn't consider the description of a "hard foul" excessive contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Right, but I wouldn't consider the description of a "hard foul" excessive contact.

I haven't seen the play, so I'm not going to say one way or the other.

That said, a "hard foul" is definitely what this rule refers to. It simply says that just because the player is going for the ball doesn't take away the possibility of an intentional foul.

"Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act."

This simply means contact does not have to be excessive to have an intentional foul; it does not mean a foul can't be ruled such based solely on its severity.

[kdays78]

The Duke pl;ayer could have went for a layup, and would not have fell as hard. There was contact but a simple right hand lay up protected as the D was on his back hip would have got the job done, and he would have laned alot safer.

My Brother a Varsity Boys coach here in IN saw that play then coach K react, and turned the channel. In his words just caoch K getting another call his way.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I haven't seen the play, so I'm not going to say one way or the other.

That said, a "hard foul" is definitely what this rule refers to. It simply says that just because the player is going for the ball doesn't take away the possibility of an intentional foul.

"Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act."

This simply means contact does not have to be excessive to have an intentional foul; it does not mean a foul can't be ruled such based solely on its severity.

I didn't think the play in question was excessive contact.

I understand what you are saying. But, saying "a hard foul like this one" to me sounds like one is basing it off the severity of the act. Stating it's a "hard foul", in my opinion, doesn't mean it's intentional nor does it mean it's not.

I see the point Camron and you are making though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I didn't think the play in question was excessive contact.

I understand what you are saying. But, saying "a hard foul like this one" to me sounds like one is basing it off the severity of the act. Stating it's a "hard foul", in my opinion, doesn't mean it's intentional nor does it mean it's not.

I see the point Camron and you are making though.

And I'm not making ANY statement about this play....I haven't seen it....just about what the rule says.

I agree that "hard foul" does mean it is based on severity....and that it what it is supposed to mean...with or without intent.

[fiasco]

Here's where I have trouble on a play like this.

I thought the contact was not severe.

It was Singler's physical reaction to the contact that was severe. So how do you differentiate the two? Should you penalize a player for making normal contact if the result of that contact is severe?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Here's where I have trouble on a play like this.

I thought the contact was not severe.

It was Singler's physical reaction to the contact that was severe. So how do you differentiate the two? Should you penalize a player for making normal contact if the result of that contact is severe?

If the direct physical result was severe, the contact was severe. You can't hit a guy soft and have them fly into the third row....Newton has something to say about that.

Now if the shooter was flying in fast and barely under control and gets a small nudge, the physical result is not due to the nudge, but from the out-of-control actions of the shooter. The contact may stil bel enough for a foul but not enough to upgrade.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And I'm not making ANY statement about this play....I haven't seen it....just about what the rule says.

I agree that "hard foul" does mean it is based on severity....and that it what it is supposed to mean...with or without intent.

Ok... we're on the same page. Was just trying to understand....

[Back In The Saddle]

Agreed. I haven't seen the play yet, perhaps somebody will post a link for those of us too lazy to go find it?

But in general, being a "hard foul" is really not enough information to decide one way or the other. The times I've called "hard fouls" intentional (meaning that in my mind the primary characteristic of the foul that met the definition of intentional was the excessive contact), the foul has either been obviously out of character for that game or it was an obvious escalation that poured gas on the fire of an already physical game. In other words, while based on the contact alone I could have gone either way, an intentional was the right choice based on the context of the game.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Agreed. I haven't seen the play yet, perhaps somebody will post a link for those of us too lazy to go find it?

I think it's in this Duke love fest that somebody posted. To jump to it, go to 0:58.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think it's in this Duke love fest that somebody posted. To jump to it, go to 0:58.

I would not call that intentional....a foul, yes....but not intentional.

[dahoopref]

Without a doubt, a whistle is needed here. The L may have been straightlined but the sudden change of direction/acceleration in mid-air by the offense should have clued the L of contact. The L was beaten down court from the sudden steal. In this case, I would've had just stopped a little below the FT line extended and officiated the play from there.

I just think it looks bad that there's is no whistle by the L on that play but in retrospect, we've all had plays where we had H.U.A.

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

High school rule:
4-19-3 "A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent."

The very next sentence after your quote.

Not sure if NCAA has the same wording.

I didn't see the play but I hope it be YouTube to watch.

NCAA Rulebook Pg 146

Section 4. Intentional Personal Fouling
Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:

f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.

[JS 20]

I watched it on sports center and rewound a few times in slow motion. IMO, Lead is straight lined, I have no idea where C is but I don't know how you make this call w/o the perfect angle the TV camera has. I really really don't see how T comes in w/ this one. For T to come get the foul late, I say that's correct, but to go w/ the "X"...not sure about that.

If you watch it, all the contact was the forearm in the back (he did appear the play the ball w/ his other arm) and the defender standing over the duke player for a second at the end sure didn't help his case for not getting an intentional called.