Intentional?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Ronny,
As JR pointed out, you have the exact wording in this Case Play:
4.19.3 SITUATION B: A1 drives to the basket with B1 in pursuit. As A1 begins
the act of shooting, B1 gets a hand on the ball from behind and the subsequent contact takes A1 forcefully to the floor and out of bounds. RULING: An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball. (4-11)

In your two cases, if, in your opinion, the players committed a foul AND you viewed the contact to be excessive, you can charge an intentional foul. You can replace "even though the opponent is playing the ball" with "even though the opponent (offender) is dribbling the ball" or "even though the opponent (offender) is trying to set a screen." The key operative phrase here is "judged to be excessive" even if the play did not otherwise rise to the level of being considered to be intentional.

Coach,

Are you sure that you can just substitute those phrases in place of "while playing the ball"? Or, do you think that this specific play is the only one where the rulesmakers wanted us to rule excessive contact?

I like your logic. However, I've never seen an intentional foul called on a hard player control foul?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Coach,

Are you sure that you can just substitute those phrases in place of "while playing the ball"? Or, do you think that this specific play is the only one where the rulesmakers wanted us to rule excessive contact?

I like your logic. However, I've never seen an intentional foul called on a hard player control foul?

I saw one once I would have called. Player going hard to the basket, led with his elbow, flattened the defender.

Partner called a block.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I saw one once I would have called. Player going hard to the basket, led with his elbow, flattened the defender.

Partner called a block.

I could see a legitimate double personal foul here, if the defender really did block. In the play I'm envisioning we'd have a block on the defender and an intentional (personal) foul for excessive contact by the dribbler.

If we called that, how do we proceed? Give it back to A, which was the POI? Doesn't seem quite fair, if A committed the intentional foul...

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I could see a legitimate double personal foul here, if the defender really did block. In the play I'm envisioning we'd have a block on the defender and an intentional (personal) foul for excessive contact by the dribbler.

If we called that, how do we proceed? Give it back to A, which was the POI? Doesn't seem quite fair, if A committed the intentional foul...

I don't understand the question.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I don't understand the question.

Seriously? Or are you just warming up for your weekly blarge bash?

The question is: if I call a double foul that includes an intentional foul on the dribbler, how do I penalize it? What happens?

If I handled it like a garden-variety double foul, we'd go to the POI, which is possession for A. That doesn't seem fair, given that A committed the intentional foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Seriously? Or are you just warming up for your weekly blarge bash?

The question is: if I call a double foul that includes an intentional foul on the dribbler, how do I penalize it? What happens?

If I handled it like a garden-variety double foul, we'd go to the POI, which is possession for A. That doesn't seem fair, given that A committed the intentional foul.

Personally, I'd skip the double and just penalize the intentional.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Seriously? Or are you just warming up for your weekly blarge bash?

The question is: if I call a double foul that includes an intentional foul on the dribbler, how do I penalize it? What happens?

If I handled it like a garden-variety double foul, we'd go to the POI, which is possession for A. That doesn't seem fair, given that A committed the intentional foul.

If you had a double foul when one team was in the bonus, you wouldn't shoot, and that also "doesn't seem fair."

Just administer the double foul. See 10-6 Penalty 1 (the Note deals with Flagrant, but the same (except for the DQ) applies to Intentional)

[rsl]

I have had it happen several times where I call block, player was upset because he was thinking charge, and on the next possession the same player runs over a defender out of anger. Only once was it so blatant that I called it intentional- he announced he was going to do it on the way up the floor. On others it has been a T because the player started arguing about the subsequent charge call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rsl

I have had it happen several times where I call block, player was upset because he was thinking charge, and on the next possession the same player runs over a defender out of anger. Only once was it so blatant that I called it intentional- he announced he was going to do it on the way up the floor. On others it has been a T because the player started arguing about the subsequent charge call.

Several times? Wow, how long have you been reffing? I've never seen this.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Coach,

Are you sure that you can just substitute those phrases in place of "while playing the ball"? Or, do you think that this specific play is the only one where the rulesmakers wanted us to rule excessive contact?

I like your logic. However, I've never seen an intentional foul called on a hard player control foul?

The case play provides the logic, it's up to us to apply it to similar but slightly different plays. You don't see it often because it's not common for a player with the ball to get stupid like that. That, and it's not uncommon for a player with the ball to flatten a defender in the natural course of events. That's not the case in reverse.

You don't see it called often on screens, either, but it's also possible.

[Kelvin green]

The rules for foul for offensive players are no different than defensive players

-a defensive player commits a common foul an offensive player commits a player control or team control foul

- either team commits an excessive contact foul, can be charged with intentional

-either team commits act determined as flagrant either team can be called for it

I would think if you are looking at plays elbow plays rare the ones where you have flexibility in determining the appropriate penalty

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Coach,

Are you sure that you can just substitute those phrases in place of "while playing the ball"? Or, do you think that this specific play is the only one where the rulesmakers wanted us to rule excessive contact?

Read it again Ronny. It's NOT "An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive WHILE PLAYING THE BALL." It's, "An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball."

In other words, excessive contact is alway intentional and "playing the ball" is not an excuse (despite what the coaches will plead)

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Read it again Ronny. It's NOT "An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive WHILE PLAYING THE BALL." It's, "An intentional foul shall be charged when the contact is judged to be excessive, even though the opponent is playing the ball."

In other words, excessive contact is alway intentional and "playing the ball" is not an excuse (despite what the coaches will plead)

The case play wording quoted by you is correct. The rule is very specifically worded, however. It doesn't imply it states "while playing the ball"

Anyway, why no intentionals on a hard player control foul? Why no intentionals on a hard illegal pick?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing - i'm just trying to understand.