Intentional?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

JR,

Kinda aware of this case play, but it doesn't really address the excessive part of my question. A defender's foul can be ruled intentional because of excessive contact while "playing the ball". So, you judge severity in that situation. Do the rulesmakers want you to judge severity on plays where "playing the ball" is not part of the equation?

Specifically, on my original two plays, can you call an intentional for excessive contact?

Mulk, with your experience I know that you must have had the play sometime where a player with the ball swings an elbow and gets an opponent in the head/face. Obviously that can be judged either an intentional or flagrant personal foul.

Don't get hung up on rule book verbiage and over-think some of these plays.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Mulk, with your experience I know that you must have had the play sometime where a player with the ball swings an elbow and gets an opponent in the head/face. Obviously that can be judged either an intentional or flagrant personal foul.

Don't get hung up on rule book verbiage and over-think some of these plays.

JR,

Tell me why a player with the ball can cause a lot of contact without getting called for an intentional? Like when dribbling or act of shooting? But if he is shooting and gets taken to the floor, we don't judge for intent we judge for excess.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

JR,

Tell me why a player with the ball can cause a lot of contact without getting called for an intentional? Like when dribbling or act of shooting? But if he is shooting and gets taken to the floor, we don't judge for intent we judge for excess.

Huh? He can be charged with an Intentional Personal foul. See 4.19.6B (and, while it's an "airborne shooter" and not "a player with the ball", I think the concept still applies.)

(Maybe I'm just not understanding the question(s).)

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Huh? He can be charged with an Intentional Personal foul. See 4.19.6B (and, while it's an "airborne shooter" and not "a player with the ball", I think the concept still applies.)

(Maybe I'm just not understanding the question(s).)

Bob,

That intentional is probably for intent - not excessive contact. My question has to do with excessive contact verses intent. Why does a hard player control not get assessed as intentional?

And, is the wording "while playing the ball" an important piece in the rule?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Bob,

That intentional is probably for intent - not excessive contact. My question has to do with excessive contact verses intent. Why does a hard player control not get assessed as intentional?

I think it could get assessed as intentional. That said, most PC fouls are "charges" and the player taking the charge expects contact so the level required to be "excessive" is perhaps higher than in other cases.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it could get assessed as intentional. That said, most PC fouls are "charges" and the player taking the charge expects contact so the level required to be "excessive" is perhaps higher than in other cases.

Right, typically it involves a player stepping into the path of an opponent who is moving quickly. Hard contact is to be expected; just like a blind screen.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it could get assessed as intentional. That said, most PC fouls are "charges" and the player taking the charge expects contact so the level required to be "excessive" is perhaps higher than in other cases.

Bob,

In the old days, shooters expected contact as well. The only thing we didn't want was for him to be undercut (flagrant). Then, they added this piece about taking a shooter hard to the floor. Now, we are saying that we can apply this excessive contact to these bone rattling player control fouls?

I've never seen it called that way???

The only place that excessive contact is discussed is in the intentional definition and in the same sentence, it has that wording attached. Please explain the wording in the definition to me "while playing the ball".

[Adam]

Then don't call it that way if you don't believe Bob.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Please explain the wording in the definition to me "while playing the ball".

All that is about is a reference to a line earlier in the same definition.

"Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball....."

The line you mention tells us that even if these conditions are not met it can still be ruled intentional if the foul involves excessive contact.