Duke/So IL intentional Foul call
 

About 6:40 left in game Duke get's a steal fastbreak dunk and the kid is fouled by So. IL. No call is made then the Duke player flies to the floor and the officail blows whistle to stop for injury, but then they call an intentional foul. I have seen a delayed call but not that delayed.

I don't even think it was intentional I mean he went up right behind the Duke player going for the ball.

Any thoughts?

I saw it too. Looked like the L wasn't going to make a call at all and I believe the T came in and the call turned into an intentional foul.

Interesting comments by our bud Bob Knight in the booth too - he said it was not intentional.

The fall was very similar to what happened to the NC player who is now out with the broken bones in his hand......the Dukey went down awkward and hard but looks to be ok.

PS - Coach K went nuts......

The Lead had no whistle. The Center had nothing.
The TRAIL came running in from beyond the division line sounding his whistle several times and made the intentional foul call. :eek:

you see, thats the power the best coach in the country has on the game. the lead official was letting it go and stopping the game for an injury and never say the reaction of coach K. the trail say the no call and say coach K go nuts on the no call. he then came charging in and told the lead , hey we better get together and call a T or intentional or he will have our heads. thats the power of coach K.

Maybe the L and C were blocked or screened ? Could the trail have been the more experienced of the crew and decided to take charge, plus he had a better angel of the push into the basket support.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in HS hard fouls like this play are to be considered intentional.

true
 

That is so sad, but oh so true the power of a powerful coach! There should have been a foul as there was contact a simple "and 1" would have done the foul justice.

I am guessing that play will be discussed in the locker room after the game.

Ok.

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

I thought it was a clean play. Then again, I attend Southern so I might be biased. ;) :D

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.

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.

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.

Thanks...
 

for Coach Painter. I'm a Boilermaker, graduated 05/98. Wasn't to sure about him, but damn can that guy recruit so far.

That implies that it can be, at least in part, based on the severity of the act.

I just watched it and IMO it was a foul for sure. (push in the back) How the lead had nothing, I'm not quite sure. Where the C was. I'm not sure. How the T comes in with his call after seeing the direction coach K took to yell at him is almost unimaginable. I really believe this looked worse and turned out worse because of the angle of the shooter and the defender heading to the bucket. Straight down the lane. Defender has no where to go but into the base of the bucket standard.
Would anyone be a little pissed at the T if you were the L???

I just looked at the replay on this. It looked as though the L might have gotten a little ahead of the play and possibly couldn't see the push in the back. It also looks as though although Boyle's right arm is making a legitimate play on the ball, he places his left arm into Singler's back and extends it while Singler is in the air, which does, IMHO, make this an intentional foul.

There was contact on the play. Based upon the NCAA rules and recent directives and POEs there is support for calling any of the three: normal personal foul, intentional personal foul, or flagrant personal foul. My opinion is that it was better to have a whistle on this play than not, but I will not question the judgment of the officials working the contest. I think that they could have gotten away with not having a foul on this play with only some grief, but not a blow-up, from Coach K as the contact wasn't hard, although the Duke player fell hard, but fortunately wasn't hurt. The problem was that a North Carolina player suffered a broken arm/wrist just the day before on a similar play. So again a whistle on this silly challenge from behind when clearly beaten and out of position makes more sense to me.

I will also comment that in my opinion a play such as this must be called by the Lead and Center without any involvement whatsoever from the Trail. The Lead may have gotten himself into a spot with a poor angle by being too close to the action, but the C had a perfect look. The Trail needs to stay the heck out of it and trust his partners to handle their business. To do otherwise undermines the crew. This wasn't a must get that grandma in the 47th row could see.

As either the Lead or C, I would be much displeased with the Trail for coming and putting a whistle on this. It gives the perception that the official is making a call to please a coach. I'm never in favor of that.

According to ESPN.com: Officials: Jamie Luckie ,Roger Ayers ,Dwayne Gladden

I've heard of Jamie Luckie, and I think Ayers is the '70s radical that Obama hangs around with, but I don't know who Gladden is.

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.

well
 

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.

The L had nothing b/c the only contact that occurred was with B1's left forearm into the left portion of A1's back. The L was on the right side of A1 and B1 and had no way to see that contact. I did not even see that contact until the 3rd replay.

All three are NCAA tournament officials and I'm pretty sure their assignment to last night's game was through the ACC.

As do many plays of this nature (IMO) it just looked/ended up worse than it really was.

When you have two very large, athletic, individuals running at a good clip with A's intent to slam it down and B's intent to block it.....and they go up high at that speed, with their heads near the bottom of the backboard and there is virtually no place to land.....neither player is gonna "stick the landing."

And to say B had his hand in A's back - heck, they're both pretty much trying to keep their balance and not end up in a heap.....which didn't work too well.

I'm just happy this apparently didn't end with any injuries.

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.

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?

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

I just saw the play. If I was the lead, I would thank the trail after the game. And I would beat myself up for missing it. The player gets forearmed and ends up running into the base of the basket. If someone doesn't whistle that play, you have a mess on your hands. As hard as the guy hit the basket and went down, I like the upgrade to intentional too.

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.

The Lead could not see the contact from his angle.

Having seen the highlight of the play, I agree a whistle was in order. The L wasn't in great position, but could have had it.

That said, I see very little reason for an intentional. Running into the support is what made the play look violent. Running into the support is not a good rationale for calling the intentional.

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

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IPxRNT8RaFU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IPxRNT8RaFU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

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.

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

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.

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).

Even then he may not have seen the contact. He still would have been looking through the back of the defender.

Off-topic: I was searching for an image of the play and found the following...check-out the price on here. And remember "No Refunds":

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com.../uw/72duke.JPG

My first thought Marginal as intentional and it may have been excessive contact...

but then look what the defender does --he takes a quick look at him on the ground (almost a stare and walks away)... Soldifies in my mind he was not (and yes I know I will get beat up for this) a basketball play... Just on that quick look it almost looks like he as trying to punish him and would give me that I would need to make it intentional...

taken in totality above intentional was the right call... If they did not clean that one up, what would have happened with the retaliation on the other end...

IMHO, the official, if any, that should be thanking the Trail is the Center. The Lead is not going to see that, and I don't begrudge him for not having a whistle on this play. The C is looking straight through the play and is the only official out there with any look in regards to the contact that was made on this play.

As far as the severity, again IMHO it looked worse that it was just from the standpoint the kids came crashing down onto the support. If the ever was a case for a game management intentional foul, no matter ones philosophy, here is an example for one in the affirmative.

$6 is '72 is equivalent to $30 in '08.

Duke football now charges $140 for 7 home games in the season tickets package.

In this video with the play in question at the :58s mark, the camera angle does have the L come right into the picture just after the contact. I'm not convinced the L didn't see this, unless the players really beat him down the court.

Yeah, but unfortunately, you may have to actually watch them play! :p

2004, 2-9; 2005, 1-10; 2006, 0-12; 2007, 1-11; 2008, 4-6

You think the L could see the contact by B1's left forearm into A1's back? That was the only contact on the play. B1's right arm (closest to L) hit the rim.

I was able to pause the video at the right spot - the defender turned slightly which I think blocked the L's view. I stand corrected.

The L does appear to be trailing the play, but from his angle, I don't think he would have seen the forearm. But either way, where would he be looking? Probably looking up top for contact on the shooting arm. So he may not see the forearm in the back even if it were visible to him.

I don't see the C anywhere, but I agree that he should have the best look at this.

The T has the advantage of distance, and should be able to see the whole play, including the forearm and the body language afterward.

Saved me the typing..........

An airborne shooter is like a pinata out there.

I can certainly go with that....contact alone doesn't clearly qualify for intentional...but post contact garbage can give insight in to upgrade it.

In NFHS, would that "post contact garbabge" warrant a techncial on the defender for taunting by him standing over the guy on the floor like that?

It certainly could.

Do The Math ...
 

What's the formula?

I going to guess and say multiply by 5.

It could at the NCAA level as well.

$6 * the rate of inflation for year after year until 2008.

Took Me Awhile, But I Found It ...
 

I knew there was a formula:
CPI Inflation Calculator

1972: $6
2008: $31.09