Duke/So IL intentional Foul call

[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.

[bob jenkins]

I think an Intentional is a good call. I see the contact causing the legs to land "in front of" the body (almost an undercut).

Sometimes the "benefit of the doubt" depends on what else is happening in the game (and I didn't see the game, so I can't comment on that).