automatic intentional foul

[Coach Bill]

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?

[Adam]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

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?

[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.