Intentional foul...and TO request
 

I was giving a talk at our local association last night and was asking for basketball situations that have come up that we may discuss.

A JV official said that he had one....this is how it was told to me.

Team A on a fast break...the Lead sees B1 wrap his arms around A1, from behind, in a "bear hug" to prevent the fast break lay-up.

Lead puts air in the whistle and called an intentional foul. (Arms crossed signal is shown)

As the Lead is getting ready to report...the Trail official approaches the Lead and says the he had a TO request from the Team A Coach...maybe "right before the foul or right about the same time." The Trail says that he blew the whistle to grant the TO "he thinks, a little before the Intentional foul call."

Watta ya got?

If it's close, go with the intentional personal, grant the TO, then shoot the free throws.

If it's not close (TO signficantly before the foul), call intentional technical foul and shoot the free throws after the TO is completed.

If Team A is on a fast break and going in for a layup and Team A Coach is requesting a timeout as HIS team is going in - I'm granting it and telling him I heard him request the timeout before the foul and I'm granting it. As the T they could have had a good look at the sequence and timing.

If Team A Coach is requesting a TO while his team is on the break, I'm giving it to him. Silly coach!

...so you are going to ignore the intentional foul?

If not close, why call intentional foul? This assuming foul wasn't of a flagrant nature.

If I'm visualizing this right, off ball official signals TO, lets say a second or two before breakaway intentional. By rule, I maybe wrong but where is the advantage? Would the same pertain to a common foul after whistle blew for timeout within a second, and officials had to sort out what came first? To me the defender is making a play albeit a heavily penalized one. But a timeout was called prior, so nothing happened.

Heavy meds today............flu, so fire away.

Tell the trail that he can't think; either it is or it isn't. If he isn't sure, you then have to decide between yourselves what came first, the foul or the TO being granted.

If he isn't sure that he blew the whistle before the intentional foul call and you both decide the foul came first, charge the intentional personal foul to B1 and then ask the coach of team A if he still wants the TO. If he does, after the TO is over have A1 shoot the 2 FT's for the intentional personal foul and give team A a throw-in at the closest OOB spot to where the foul occurred.


If he is sure that he blew the whistle before the intentional foul call, then the fun is gonna start. You grant the TO request to team A. But...big but.... by rule you now have an intentional contact foul while the ball is dead...which under rule 4-19-5(c) is an intentional technical foul. After team A takes the TO, any A player(s) can shoot the 2 FT's and team A will get a throw-in at center opposite the table.

Once the L gave the intentional foul signal, you pretty much gotta go through with it in either case.

That's the rule book solution imo.

You sure made up a dandy for them to think about, Dude.

I was looking up the citation when the Jurassic one printed his note. So I am going with his scenario two ICW 4-19-5(c). Interesting.

I initially told him to do as you suggested in your 1st response.

Someone said..."hey, it's a dead ball after the TO was granted...so it would be an intentional technical."

I told him "true", but the only difference is where Team A is going to take the ball OOB.

If it truly was as close as the JV official said, I told the group that I would probably sell it by saying the actions were simultaneous...and administer as stated in the 1st response.

If the TO was clearly requested and granted before the intentional foul...I would go with the intentional technical...since we do not want to ignore intentional or flagrant fouls.

Really? Who gets to shoot if it's a technical? Who gets to shoot if it's an intentional personal?

...as I see now...JR has so much more, than I, eloquently stated the way it should be...along with Rule references.

I also see where I should not have stated that it is the "ONLY" difference...in regards to "only" where the ball will be placed OOB.

Technical foul called...any player(s) can shoot the two FT's.

Intentional foul called...player fouled shoots the FT's...unless injured, then it would be his substitute.

Good sitch.;)

Yeah...I caught my mistake in saying "ONLY" difference.

Already typed a response before I read yours. (Actually was trying to type fast before JR caught my "ONLY" response)

Good catch!

Yup, good one to give to your association to discuss. Lot of concepts involved.

I'm stealing it for our next meeting.:)

The rules won't let you sell it that way, I think.

Rule 2-7-3 says that you have to determine when the ball becomes dead. And there's 2 case book plays that back that concept up...2.6SitA&B.

Sooooo, it's either dead with the TO request or dead with the personal intentional foul...your choice.

100% with snaq on this.

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.

So? :confused:

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).

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.

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.

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.

That one sailed right over my head.