Inbounding - foul?

[PSidbury]

Originally Posted by eyezen

A1 clears B1 with forearm to get space to inbound the ball.

I kind of agree with intentional foul.
If B1 is standing in-bounds and A1 reaches in-bounds to initiate contact, then A1's intent to make contact is "pre-meditated".
A1 could just as easily have "pre-meditated" a step back to get more space out of bounds.

If B1 had "broken the plane" OOB and then A1 made contact, I would agree with delay of game warning.

Thanks,
Paul

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by PSidbury

I kind of agree with intentional foul.
Paul

When there is play in the lane and the Offensive Player, with the ball, clears some space with his arms to get off a shot, do you call intentional or PC?

In the OP, I see the action as that of two players trying to accomplish something. The Offensive Player's action is illegal and therefore a foul, but I don't deem it as falling under the definition of an Intentional Foul. I can't imagine calling an Intentional Foul everytime a player uses his forearm to "get some space."

My $.02, I am calling this a personal foul (no PC or TC) and penalizing accordingly.

My other $.02, If an official chooses to call this Intentional, then it is Intentional. But it doesn't HAVE to be Intentional.

[deecee]

Ok so dont question what you are told to do? I was just providing food for thought.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by deecee

Ok so dont question what you are told to do? I was just providing food for thought.

You didn't say, "let's talk to the rules committee about this" You were implying that what's said in the book doesn't seem fair, so we shouldn't call it that way. Question all you want. But that shouldn't change how you call it, until the rule is actually changed.

[deecee]

but certainly a PC foul in NEVER a play on the ball...

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by deecee

but certainly a PC foul in NEVER a play on the ball...

Sooo......

[Juulie Downs]

After a lot of thought, I'm thinking maybe you mean that since it's not a play on the ball it must be intentional?? That's some kind of error in logic though I don't remember the name of it. An illegal screen isn't a play on the ball, but it's not intentional. And as you say, no PC is a play on the ball, but a PC is almost never intentional. I just don't see any rules support for calling the contact intentional if it's initiated by A1.