Intentional foul...and TO request

[RookieDude]

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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 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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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

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

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

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

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!

[RookieDude]

...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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Good sitch.

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

I'm stealing it for our next meeting.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

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.

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.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

100% with snaq on this.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.