Intentional?
 

Do the rules allow an intentional foul for excessive contact to be called on a player holding or dribbling the ball? For example, the dribbler lowers the shoulder and runs completely over a LGP defender. A lot of contact occurs?

While on the subject, how about the illegal hard screen away from the ball where the screener extends the arms and "decleats' the person being screened?

If yes on either, what is the wording in the definition that allows this to be intentional?

See case book play 4.19.6SitB.

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?

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.

+1

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.

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.

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

I saw a play under NCAA rules where player A1 had secured a loose ball and player B1 was pressuring him.

A1 swings a vicious elbow and knocks B1 to the floor. :eek:

Officials called an intentional foul on A1.

q.e.d. :D

Only flagrant personal I ever called in a varsity game was on a player with the ball.

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.

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... :eek:
:D

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)

I don't understand the question.

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.

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).)

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,

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?

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.

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)

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.

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".

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

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.

Snagwells,

Since when is trying to understand a rule not believing somebody? Even if it's you doing the explaining?

Mulk