automatic intentional foul
 

An AAU game over the weekend (NFHS rules). 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. He was going for the ball, but made sure that a foul was committed. I thought a good foul.

The ref ruled an intentional foul. I argued the call, and he said that since the guy was going to have a break-away, it's an automatic intentional foul. Even offered to show me in the rulebook after the game.

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?

Yeah, you're right.
Well, at least you're right that he was wrong. And you know what, I'd have taken him up on his offer.
He may have been confusing the NBA rule, or he may have been misinterpreting the idea of taking away a clear advantage.

You can still commit an intentional foul even if you are going for the ball. Now there is not automatic intentional foul based on this situation, but an intentional foul based on the overall action is likely to take place. Totally a judgment call and if that was the only reason the official, then he/she was totally wrong. This is a HTBT situation as usual, but I cannot defend the comment said to you.

Peace

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 :D

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.

From My Pregame (NFHS) ...
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".