automatic intentional foul

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I think he's confusing an NBA rule and the clear path to the basket call. There's not really that rule in the NFHS rulebook, correct?

Here we go again, sure there may be different floor mechanics & signals at different levels, but basketball is basketball people! Although it may be worded different the meanings are actually the same.

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

There was about to be a breakaway at mid-court for a guy on the other team, and my guy reached in and committed a foul.

Was the offensive player headed to the bucket with no defender in front of him?

Did your player reach in from behind the player with obvious advantageous position and foul him?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Here we go again, sure there may be different floor mechanics & signals at different levels, but basketball is basketball people! Although it may be worded different the meanings are actually the same.

Actually, the rules and meaning are different in the NBA. I believe the NBA does not have an intentional foul rule, like NFHS or NCAA. Their "clear path foul" has specific conditions that need to be met in certain situations in order to call that foul, where the intentional foul rule in NFHS and NCAA are completely different in wording and meaning. I also believe the NBA does not use the wording, "...contact away from the ball designed specifically to stop the clock...", like NFHS and NCAA.

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Was the offensive player headed to the bucket with no defender in front of him?

This really has no bearing on whether an intentional foul should be called in NCAA or NFHS.

You're right & I understand that there aren't any "intentional fouls" in the league. But our definition of intentional foul is is similar to the clear path.

Someone with a clear path has an obvious advantageous postiion, IMO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

You're right & I understand that there aren't any "intentional fouls" in the league. But our definition of intentional foul is is similar to the clear path.

Someone with a clear path has an obvious advantageous postiion, IMO.

Right, but it's not "automatic." If the kid has a legitimate play on the ball, it's a common foul.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Right, but it's not "automatic." If the kid has a legitimate play on the ball, it's a common foul.

I never said automatic, I learned my lesson about using that word in officiating a couple years back... thanks JRut

But a kid can make play on the ball & the contact is so severe that intentional may be called, correct?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

I never said automatic, I learned my lesson about using that word in officiating a couple years back... thanks JRut

But a kid can make play on the ball & the contact is so severe that intentional may be called, correct?

Yeah, i think that may be Jeff's least favorite word in the English language.

Absolutely. I was only refuting the what Coach Bill said he was told by the official. A breakaway situation can definitely result in a foul, even if the player is "attempting" to play the ball.

Like you alluded to, if the advantage is so great that it's obvious the real intent is to negate that advantage rather than play the ball, it could be (maybe should be) an intentional. We don't call many of those, though.

And excessive contact can also be an intentional, even if it was a legitimate attempt to play the ball. An inentional requires either one or the other (intent or excess), not both.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

An inentional requires either one or the other (intent or excess), not both.

By rule a foul that does any of the following can be deemed an intentional:
1. neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position
2. contact away from the ball which is specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting
3. contact when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player which is specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting
4. a player causing excessive contact with an opponent even if playing the ball

The first three would fall under your intent classification since the player intends to take away the advantageous position or stop the clock (/keep it from starting). The last is the excess that you mention.

FWIW I would probably deem the play in the OP an intentional personal foul. The OP even said that his teammate made sure to foul. The guy simply wanted to prevent an easy scoring opportunity for his opponent. I think that the official made a great decision.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This really has no bearing on whether an intentional foul should be called in NCAA or NFHS.

Sure it does, unless you have a different rule book than I do. Mine says it's an intentional foul if it neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. An offensive player headed to the bucket with no defender in front of him is in an obvious advantageous position.

I try to not say always but more times than not, I've got an INT foul in this situation.

[Coach Bill]

It was a judgement call which I thought should be a common foul, but it was a close call. An intentional may have been the right call, but, when I argued the call and he said it was an "automatic", it didn't sound right. I've heard many times on this board, there's no such thing as an "automatic".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I've heard many times on this board, there's no such thing as an "automatic".

But the NCAA did put in two "absolutes" this past season.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Sure it does, unless you have a different rule book than I do. Mine says it's an intentional foul if it neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. An offensive player headed to the bucket with no defender in front of him is in an obvious advantageous position.

I try to not say always but more times than not, I've got an INT foul in this situation.

I understand your point, but give me a definition of "obvious advantageous position". I think we all agree on the example of a defender grabbing the player on the fast break from behind. But I'm not so sure contact that would be a normal, common foul (picture the ever-popular "reach-in" contact on the arm of the dribbler), would be an "almost always" intentional foul simply because there are no other defenders between the dribbler and the basket. If so, would you have an intentional on the half-court "clear-out" play, where A1 beats B1 off the dribble along the endline while all the other players are on the other side of the court, and has the exact same contact on the arm? Same contact, same positioning of A1 and B1, no other player at that moment between A1 and the basket, so why isn't that considered the same "obvious advantageous position", versus the fast-break example?

[David M]

I have seen defensive players make great plays by knocking the ball away from a driving offensive player when I thought that that player would have an uncontested layup. Therefore, If the defensive player can make a play on the ball and fouls I don't feel it should be intentional.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by David M

I have seen defensive players make great plays by knocking the ball away from a driving offensive player when I thought that that player would have an uncontested layup. Therefore, If the defensive player can make a play on the ball and fouls I don't feel it should be intentional.

FIBA introduced this year a "clear path" foul:

If a defensive player causes contact with an opponent from behind or laterally in an attempt to stop a fast break and there is no opponent between the offensive player and the opponents’ basket, then the contact shall be judged to be unsportsmanlike.

However they stated that a fast break ends when the try for goal begins, so to allow plays like those referred to by David M.

Notes. (1) Unsportsmanlike is what Fed rules call intentional. (2) The opponents' basket is what Fed rules call the player's own basket.

Ciao

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by eg-italy

The opponents' basket is what Fed rules call the player's own basket.

Is this part of the metric system ???