Intentional
 

I didn't want to hijack Representing's thread, but the responses to it got me thinking about intentional fouls and whether or not I would have called one on the play posted. For reference here's the contact (for purposes of my question I'm disregarding the T before contact and am looking to discuss the contact afterward):

YouTube - Technical & Unsportsmanlike Foul

To save everyone looking it up, here is the NFHS definition for Intentional Foul:

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.

My first reaction looking at the clip (again, only interested here in the contact foul, not the T the proceeded it) was that it was a hard foul and we're obviously shooting free throws in some number depending on if the ball went in. Having read responses to the previous post, though, there seems to be consensus that and intentional foul was committed.

My question is this - are you relying on the "causes excessive contact" above to call that foul intentional? How does that jibe with "are not based solely on the severity of the act?" The foul in the clip is obviously a hard foul, but there was apparently an attempt to make a play on the ball (however inept it was in execution). I guess what I'm looking for is how do you determine if a foul is intentional in that type of situation?

I am not calling that intentional, I am calling that flagrant. Not only was the action by the defender trying to foul him, he was trying to take him out. Intentional foul has nothing to do with intent necessarily.

Peace

Aaah........I think I'm going with excessive contact

I'm not sure I would go with Flagrant, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it if my partner did it. If I was on the floor where that official is standing, I would have a better view of the defender and any "follow through" or "wind up."

All that said, intentionals can be called for either "intent" or "excessive contact." It jibes easily, since the rule says they "are not based solely on the severity of the act." That's making the point that you can call an intentional foul even if the contact isn't severe; the final sentence gives you license to call it on a play like the OP video. This way, when a player makes an attempt to go for the ball but knocks the player into the bleachers, you can call an intentional foul.

no doubt
 

In FIBA, an unsporting foul occurs when you disregard the spirit of the game, here the defender clearly had no intentions of playing the ball, he ran the shooter, clear and simple. In FIBA this is not called intentional but unsportwmqn like. I had a very similar situation just last night, called the US followed by the T. I called yet another US during the same game when player who was on a clear break was yelled at by the defender during the shot, US and must be called. A warning may be given if the ball scored but not if it missed
the penalty here is stiff, 2 for the T, 2 for the US and then white gets the ball, possible 7 pt play ( if a 3 is made) or 8 if fouled while making a 3

Going back to the play, it is clear to me this is a flagrant foul. I'm sure the referee on the floor would have caught this as he was right there, but in the video I had to watch this a few times.

Look at the defensive player going into the shooter. It doesn't look like he went up to block the ball, albeit the hand going up to look like he's making a legit attempt to block. It looks like he used excessive force to go into the torso of the player intentionally to injury or take out the player, and then watch where his arm went. It went down towards the head and shoulder, obviously looking like he wanted to hit the shooter with his arm. I'm bringing this video up with our chapter's rule's interpreter and ask him what he thinks.

Yes, I know there are no replays in high school sports, and that you have to call it as you see it. First time watching this video before making it a thread on here, I immediately thought "wow, that was pretty flagrant" and if i were the ref, I would have ejected that player.

My theory is that something must have happened on the other end of the court before it came to this part, because of the yelling coach, the almost immediate Technical given to that coach and then this shooting foul occurring. But then again, we are only seeing a few seconds of that whole game so I can't say for sure that this is what happened up to this point.

jallen,

You may want to check the FIBA rule book (Rule 6 - Art 36.1.4 bullet 3, see below) regarding Unsportmanlike Fouls and the clear path foul. You cannot call an Unsportmanlike Foul when contact does not occur. Yelling at a player could be a Technical Foul for an unsportmanlike act, but IMHO an Unsportsmanlike Foul is the not correct call in your play hilighted in red.

FIBA Rule 6 - Art 36.1.4 bullet 3
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.

In the OP...

Definately Unsportmanlike at the very least, more than likely should be a Disqualifying Foul (FIBA = same as Flagrant). I see no issue with the Technical Foul either as that was the 1st whistle.

Agree. In addition, I think that context is relevant: if this foul is retaliatory or otherwise part of a series of escalating fouls, it might be flagrant. I'm not just going to keep calling intentional fouls for a series of excessive contacts.

I had a game a couple years ago where one player committed a pretty bad intentional foul in the 2nd quarter. Third quarter, does it again, this time slightly harder (flat out pushing a breakaway shooter). My partner went straight to the flagrant on it. Whether it would have been flagrant without the previous foul is hard to judge in hind sight.

I called an intentional foul in a varsity game last night, my partner and I called one each in a varsity game Tuesday, and I called one in a JV game last week. All were for excessive contact, and the one in the JV game was really close to flagrant. What's really wierd is that these were all in girls games....haven't had anything close in my boy's games so far.....

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

It was during a relatively well played 8th grade boys game near the end of the third quarter. A visiting team player gets a hold of the ball out of a scrum in the home team's backcourt and has a fast break to an uncontested layup. As he goes up for his lay up, a defensive player comes leaping in from behind and tries to take a weak swipe at the ball while going completely through the offensive player. It was a pretty easy call for me actually. The home team coach nearly had a coronary event when I reported the foul as if this was somehow a surprise to him.

true
 

techs can only be not contact fouls and USP must involved contact. by the way I did score 94 on the very tricky FIBA exam this year, so I usually get the rules right

No big surprise there.

In the game last night, situation occurred on a long rebound off a 3 pt attempt by V1. V3 chases the rebound, followed by H3 maybe 2 steps behind her. V3 gets possession of the ball - H3 makes no attempt to avoid contact and crashes full tilt into V3, hooking an arm around her torso and taking her to the floor in the process. When I reported the intentional, coach H nearly lost it. He collected himself and asked "how can you call that intentional?" - my reply was "excessive contact". The dumbfounded look on his face told me he clearly didn't know the rule.......

A. most of us do not use FIBA
B. in NFHS what you're saying is false of technical fouls (4-19-5).
C. I don't know what USP means other than United States Pharmacopeia.

I had an Unsportmanlike foul last night, in a VG tournament game (FIBA rules).

Partner calls a "common" foul on Blue 14. White 13 (the player who was fouled) turns and pushes Blue 14 during the ensueing dead ball. So I call the unsportsmanlike foul. (I belive in NF/NCAA this would be an Intentional Technical).

Strange thing is, there was not a peep from the White team coach whom I've had issues with in the past. I didn't hear anything else from him for the rest of the game either. :rolleyes:

posted for clarification...

That's NOT the penalty for an intentional foul. :cool:

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

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.

Usp
 

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

clarity
 

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

hmmm
 

i will call for "ugly foul".

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?

Absolutely get both. If, however, it had been a "regular" shooting foul, you may have to ignore it. In this case, if this was the 2nd half (and the coach's team has the ball on this play), the T caused the ball to become dead, so the foul has to be either intentional, flagrant, or ignored.