Intentional

[Ref_in_Alberta]

Originally Posted by mbyron

A. most of us do not use FIBA
- True, the majority of posters here are in the USA.
B. in NFHS what you're saying is false of technical fouls (4-19-5).
- Technical Fouls under FIBA rules are always non-contact in nature.
- Dead ball contact that cannot be ignored under FIBA rules should be assessed as an Unsportsmanlike Foul.
C. I don't know what USP means other than United States Pharmacopeia.
- USP = Unsportsmanlike Foul (same penalty as the NF/NCAA Intentional Foul. 2 Shots + Ball) FIBA puts the ball at the divison line for any penalty involving FTs + Possesion

posted for clarification...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ref_in_Alberta

posted for clarification...

- USP = Unsportsmanlike Foul (same penalty as the NF/NCAA Intentional Foul. 2 Shots + Ball at the division line)

That's NOT the penalty for an intentional foul.

[dsqrddgd909]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's NOT the penalty for an intentional foul.

(Sounds of rookie running for rules book)
2 FT plus throw in (10-6 Penalties 4) at designated spot 2-2-2 (officials Manual)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That's NOT the penalty for an intentional foul.

Well, he did say that it was for "dead ball contact that cannot be ignored", so, unless he's talking about a foul on or by an airborne shooter, it is an intentional technical foul, and his penalty is correct.

[jallen]

I did not mean to confuse anyone but I wanted just to use a short form
unsportsman like personal foul which can occur during a deal ball and can be canceled if there is an offsetting USP or T foul called. this is different from other sets of rules.
I have refereed many times in the states over the last 15 years and have adapted well to their rules when needed to. Basically refereeing is refereeing

[jallen]

I like this discussion between different sets of rules, good to hear
In FIBA, contact during a dead ball is a personal foul. it can be deemed an unsportsmanlike foul as there was no attempt to play the ball. but under no circumstances can it be a technical if contact occured

[tjchamp]

Originally Posted by Rufus

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based on solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

Not based solely on the severity of the act goes both ways. You could very nicely bear hug a shooter under the basket, no intent to maim, but it would still be an intentional foul.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Well, he did say that it was for "dead ball contact that cannot be ignored", so, unless he's talking about a foul on or by an airborne shooter, it is an intentional technical foul, and his penalty is correct.

Fair enough. But the penalty he provided is the penalty for any technical foul, and only some intentional fouls (namely those that are also T's), and thus more correctly described as the penalty for technical fouls.

[jallen]

not in FIBA, it would be unsportsman like as there is no intentional foul in FIBA
I know, semantics, in the end the same thing happens

[biggravy]

So because of the T does defender get a free shot at the shooter? If I call the T and still see the whole play (which I thought was flagrant) I am interested in dumping that player anyway. That is flagrant contact live ball or dead ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I've had one intentional foul call so far in my short basketball career.

We had 4 in the last 20 seconds of overtime tonight. That's right, 4. Visitors open overtime with a 6-0 run. Home misses, visitors sit on it down inside the final minute. Finally they turn it over, home scores and calls timeout. Visitors inbound, kid wraps his arms around the dribbler from behind. Two shots. Ball back to the spot in backcourt. Inbound. Home player grabs the shirt with both hands. Two shots. Same spot. Same throwin. Same foul.......twice more.

Heard coach each time scolding the player. "You can't do that." But they continued to "do that."

Finally with 4 seconds left home coach told his team to back up.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by biggravy

So because of the T does defender get a free shot at the shooter? If I call the T and still see the whole play (which I thought was flagrant) I am interested in dumping that player anyway. That is flagrant contact live ball or dead ball.

I don't think anyone has claimed we should ignore that contact.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Heard coach each time scolding the player. "You can't do that." But they continued to "do that."

Man, I had no idea that learning curve was so steep!

[mendi]

i will call for "ugly foul".

[biggravy]

Originally Posted by biggravy

So because of the T does defender get a free shot at the shooter? If I call the T and still see the whole play (which I thought was flagrant) I am interested in dumping that player anyway. That is flagrant contact live ball or dead ball.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't think anyone has claimed we should ignore that contact.

I'm not saying that anyone is saying that we ignore the contact. I just wanted a dialogue on can we get both in this sitch?