second intentional
 

Team A is down by two, about twenty seconds left. B1 has an uncontested layup from behind and A1 wraps him up from behind. Easy intentional foul call.
B1 makes both shots.

During the ensuing inbound, A2 pushes B2 off ball. It is minor frustration push - A2 is not really savvy enough realize he is also stopping the clock. But, Team A benefits from the foul and the contact is off ball, so I call an another intentional.

I'm thinking I kicked this one. The second call should have been common foul based on intent. But whether there was intent or not, the foul stopped the clock and gave A a big advantage.

Is this an intentional?

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes
an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or
when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically
designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional
fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of
the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.

Was the "minor push" designed to stop the clock, or was the defensive player playing tough defense to prevent his player from receiving the inbounds pass?

I think the latter. The game context was such that it looked like he was trying to stop the clock, but if I sit back and judge the action alone this is probably not intentional. That is why I kicked it.

Billy qouted the rule, but really this is a HTBT moment. Got video?

This is a regional mens rec game, so no video. You are right, it is a HTBT call. My question (from a rules point of view), is how much should we let game context come in to play on the intentional foul call.

This particular push would have been a common foul at any other point in the game. But because it was off ball in a strategic situation I chose to elevate it.

I am pretty sure my game awareness was much higher than the defender involved, and he may well have been clueless about the significance of the foul.

Fixed it for ya'. :)

imho, no intentional foul. this was a common foul based on what you've described.

we ALWAYS should have game context in mind when officiating (i.e. similar plays need similar calls, making sure we identify "trouble makers", understand time/score situtations, etc.). good officials know when a team is going to foul in order to stop the clock and/or get the ball back.

when determining an intentional foul, i only consider two factors: 1) did the defender make a "normal" play on the ball or offensive player; or 2) was there excessive contact.

what you described did not meet either of those criteria. YES, the defender fouled away from the ball. whether the intention was to stop the clock or not, that play is very rarely ruled an intentional foul. just because a team wants to foul to stop the clock in end of game situations does not mean it is an intentional foul. to make the call you did would, imho, mean you are reading way too much into the wording of the rule - taking it too literally....

Not intentional. IT was (as I read it) a "basketball play."

The rule doesn't read "... stops the clock." It reads "designed to stop the clock." And it should be interpreted as "solely desgned to stop the clock."

Thanks guys - you've confirmed it, I kicked it.

+1

Look for a non-basketball play that can serve no possible purpose other than to stop the clock. It's rare (though not impossible).

From this, I think you should have called it a common foul.