automatic intentional foul

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

By rule a foul that does any of the following can be deemed an intentional:
1. neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position

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.

Here's the problem. This train of thought implies that you could have two entirely different calls in situations depending on the positioning of the two players, where the defender uses exactly the same amount of contact and makes the same play on the ball . If A1 is "ahead" of B1 towards the hoop, you would call it intentional, but if he was not, you wouldn't. IMHO, a foul without excessive contact that occurs when the defender is making a legitimate play for the ball is not an intentional foul, and I will not change my call just because the ball handler was on one side of the defender rather than on the other.

[Nevadaref]

When the defender has been beaten and is out of position, escalating the penalty should he foul makes perfect sense to me.

He should have to make a choice. He can let his opponent go unchallenged for an easy score or he try to make a desperation play knowing that he is risking a harsher penalty should he fail.

Soccer handles this concept very well by issuing yellow cards for deliberate tactical fouls and even red cards when the foul is committed by the last defender and the attacker has an obvious goal scoring opportunity.