Intentional foul...and TO request

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the TO was granted, the foul is a no call.

No obvious advantageous position to be neutralized.

Ball is dead. Clock is stopped. Foul was therefore not designed to stop it or keep it from starting.

I agree in principle and this makes sense, but I don't think the rules allow us to differentiate the "obviously advantageous position" intentional fouls vs. the "excessive force" / non basketball plays intentional fouls.

If a foul was ruled intentional, I think it's probably too late to rescind it since the ball is dead.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the TO was granted, the foul is a no call.

No obvious advantageous position to be neutralized.

Ball is dead. Clock is stopped. Foul was therefore not designed to stop it or keep it from starting.

So?

If a player pushes somebody during a dead ball, does that mean that you can't call an intentional technical foul because there was no obvious advantageous position to be neutralized? You can't call that dead-ball push because it also wasn't done to keep the clock from starting or stopping?

It's still intentional contact when the ball is dead. That meets the criteria of rule 4-19-5(c).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

So?

It's still intentional contact when the ball is dead. That meets the criteria of rule 4-19-5(c).

What if a player grabs another player around the waist to keep him from falling down? That's intentional contact, too, but it isn't an intentional foul, in my opinion, and neither is the OP.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by sseltser

I agree in principle and this makes sense, but I don't think the rules allow us to differentiate the "obviously advantageous position" intentional fouls vs. the "excessive force" / non basketball plays intentional fouls.

If a foul was ruled intentional, I think it's probably too late to rescind it since the ball is dead.

Disagree.

An intentional foul is *either* excessive (but non-flagrant) contact, or contact while not playing the ball.

The "foul" in this play was the latter, and I think the intent of the IT foul is only for the former.

And, I recognize that this is my interp -- you probably can't get that from a literal reading of the book.

[just another ref]

I didn't want to see this one die quite so quickly. I think what bob said means he agrees with me, but I'm not positive. Several others were on the other side, so..........

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I didn't want to see this one die quite so quickly. I think what bob said means he agrees with me, but I'm not positive. Several others were on the other side, so..........

the exception that proves the rule.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

the exception that proves the rule.

That one sailed right over my head.