|
Intentional or excessive intentional
Close game with two athletic teams 12 deep AAU. 3 minutes left, the team up 5 steals the ball, I am trail becoming lead, defender streaks down and they meet at the rim on a layup, defenders hands on the ball arms and crashes the offensive player. Hard clean foul. No Wind up, No Intent, and No Follow through. I called a shooting foul. After the game, our observer jumped on me that I should have called a excessive intentional foul!! It is either Intentional or Flagrant. I did not argue but read the book and talked with my partners and we are confused. Please provide input.
|
Nfhs 4-19-3 ...
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. I don't believe that the NFHS has a "hard foul" intentional foul signal. I believe that only the NCAA-M have such a signal. However, my high school board has been taught this "hard foul" signal for several years. http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/...41581841_m.jpg |
What your observer is saying is that even a hard clean foul can be determined to be intentional if the contact is excessive. Read the definitions of fouls in Rule 4. Billy quotes the rule above.
As for signals, just go with the "X," as it's easily recognized. |
Raise Your Hand If You're Sure ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
Can't really make out the excessive foul mechanic. It looks like you just stand there with your arms at your sides and fists clenched? :confused: |
Quote:
|
Hard Foul Signal ...
Quote:
|
I think this is the approved mechanic to indicate an intentional, flagrant, excessive jerk, er, I mean foul.
http://thegirlfromtheghetto.files.wo...idol-simon.jpg |
Nah Nah Nha Nah Nah ...
Quote:
|
Obviously this is a judgment call. I have a real hard time calling the excessive contact on a on player in a situation where they are playing the ball and only hits the arms but it causes a train wreck because of the speed of the play.
If the player is all over the body too and drives them down then i can see that as excessive, but calling it excessive because of the speed and intensity of the play making a normal play have a hard landing really doesn't seem appropriate to the defense. If the contact was no more then normal adjusted for the momentum of the players, but the speed and timing of the play results in a hard landing , I don't think you should be calling intentional IMO. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
One of the primary jobs of the official is to insure reasonable safety. If it is excessive contact, by rule and by duty you gotta call it. The train wreck described in the OP fits the criteria. Call the intentional.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I understand what you are saying and maybe I'm not being clear. There are lots of these situations where I would and have called excessive just not if contact is in course of a regular sort of play on the ball that ends up badly because it was a breakaway. If the offense goes to the rim hard and defense takes a charge, most times I'm no calling the offensive player for an intentional. Despite the fact they may not have slowed up, tried to avoid it and knowing both players hit the floor hard I still don't think its intentional. Its not excessive, just a tough basketball play. By that same token a defender leaving their feet trying to make a play to stop a shot that results in a foul in the normal course of play (even knowing it could be ugly) and still making the tough play. Play on. Again if they are playing the body and not the ball or clearly going for a foul to bust the play up then I can move onto excessive when they spill everywhere. If you get tighter then that every offensive player in every game should go to the rim hard and layout as much as possible so that any arm contact at all drives them to floor and can be construed as dangerous. It is a judgement call though and every situation is unique. |
I don't think we're that far apart. It's not that I'm going to rule normal arm contact intentional just because the shooter lands on his arse. That said, there are times when the landing can help determine just how hard the contact was, and the result isn't always irrelevant. I'm talking about a hard rake across the arms that knocks a player into the following week. Normally, however, it's not solely arm to arm contact involved here. Typically, body contact is required for this sort of foul.
|
Two thoughts:
1. Game control. If the contact is significant to warrant consideration for excessive contact and it "turns up the heat" unnecessarily, if there's no good reason for it, if the outcome is already decided, if there's a history going on...I'm calling it intentional to send a clear message. 2. We call lots of fouls where there is clean contact with the ball. The ball is not the only consideration. And if the defender can't make that clean play on the ball without creating excessive contact...it should be called. |
Sounds as if the OP was at a college camp. Hence, the evaluator is likely far more familiar with NCAA directives than those of the NFHS.
A couple of years ago the NCAA put an emphasis on protecting airborne players, especially those going up for dunks and lay-ups. The instruction was basically to deem more of the plays in which these players were fouled to be intentional or flagrant. It seems that this is the perspective from which the evaluator is speaking. |
Did you ask the Center official for information? A lot of intentional fouls occur on fastbreak plays off of turnovers. In my opinion, the Center will have the best look on whether an upgrade to intentional or flagrant is warranted.
Sometimes, we can have intentional fouls that are legitimate plays on the ball based on excessive contact. If the observer jumped you on this, I would at least consider the merits of what they said. |
Quote:
|
Rock, Paper, Scissors ???
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I am not a polling guru (and like everyone hated statistics). I was just thinking if you sample EVERYONE, than you would have an accurate reprentation of the opinion of those in attendance. But then I remembered all of these other big words that make me stand corrected in the presence of your statistical sampling knowledge!!!
|
Quote:
I will express no personal opinion on this whatsoever. I'm merely relaying the information. |
Quote:
You already know mine. |
Quote:
The rationale given 2 explain that makes some sense. The first being it is better/easier to 'upgrade' a foul than to 'downgrade' a foul. Similar to you cant "uneject' someone. Secondly, it gives the perception that the crew is working together, that eyes were on the play and the calling official has the information they need to come to a proper decision about 'upgrading'. Further, the process is not dissimilar to an official providing additional information about an OB. Official comes in, provides info to calling official, calling official then decides whether or not to change call. I like it, but thenagain, I am a big fan of the officiating crew having as much information as they can get. This type of foul, like some tech's IMO, is rare enough that having these quick consults warrant the 'one off' type situation being espoused. |
The drawback is that it gives the impression that all eyes were on the same players.
Personally, I think it looks better if the X is given immediately rather than after discussion; but maybe that's just me. |
Quote:
The other side, at least IME is that these types of fouls often come with a double whistle anyways. If one official goes X and another goes with a fist, who takes priority? If you both come out with fists, quick 5 second huddle, and then come out with the X some would say is 'perceived' better. If there is only one whistle, I can see where the "quick X" would be best. I am not sure there is a perfect solution to the problem, but IMO, it is just a matter of taste and direction. |
Quote:
What ever happened to the concept of don't make a call in the first place unless you are sure of that call? I can only speak for myself, but I didn't call intentional or flagrant fouls unless I was sure the calls were appropriate. |
Quote:
I really don't think it makes anyone look "weak" or "unsure", but that's just mho... |
Quote:
Like you mentioned, I've seen this used most often on a fast-break situation, where there are probably 2 officials close by, usually L and C. I once saw a play like that develop - hard foul on a breakaway layup, the defender definitely went for the ball, but the offensive player went hard to the floor. Both L and C had a whistle because it came from C's side of the floor, watched the two of them get together right away, both of them were nodding yes to each other during the quick conversation, and the C came out with the "X". Neither coach had a complaint with the call or the way it was handled. I found out later the conversation went something like this: "Whatcha got?" "Got a foul on B23" "Intentional?" "She was going for the ball" "From my angle she gave her an extra hard swipe and a push from the side; I was going to come in with the intentional" "Think so? Ok then" It all happened quickly, and both officials were looking at each other and nodding the whole time, so unless you were standing right next to them, you would've thought they were both agreeing they had the same call. So, when handled correctly, you can give your partner information without appearing to disagree with them or change their mind on a call. Doesn't work all the time, or with everybody, but it can be done. |
Quote:
If they think it's intentional, they signal that immediately. If they feel it's flagrant, they also signal that immediately. They not afraid to take the credit...or flak...for their calls. Getting input on a violation such as a tipped ball going OOB is a whole 'nother animal. In that situation, a call has to be made. That doesn't hold true for a foul call. What are gonna do if your partner says "Gee, imo I don't think there was a foul on that play." Are you gonna take that input into account also? Again, jmo but I think that foul calling is the one area where you can't call by committee. If you can't trust your own judgment, you shouldn't blow the whistle in the first place. |
Quote:
Example: Quick steal and break to the far end. I am T and have to bust my butt to get down there to L. I get there, see contact by the defender from behind but am straight-lined somewhat, and blow my whistle. My C comes running in and says "We should go Intentional. That was a big-time shove in the back." I am going to say "Thank you" and go to the X. My C had a fantastic angle on it and gave me information so we could get that call correct. If I had a good look at it, I simply say "No, partner. I've got this one" and away we go. Like M&M said, it's quick and to the point. |
ROCKY You are on dangerous ground b/c it would appear we are in agreement and have come thru the 'same school' in this regards!!! You may want to watch the company you keep on this board, you may get a reputation!!:D I am secure enough in my manhood, that I don't take getting additional information as an afront to my machismo!!
JR- This is not a situation where one official is calling a foul and another official is coming in saying no it is not a foul. In fact, it is an attempt to avoid that. What this avoids is a double whistle where one official comes up with an X and one does not. In that case, you now have a situation where someone is going to, in your words, look weakashell b/c their call, either the X or the common foul, is going to be ignored/overruled. By getting together, BOTH (or heaven forbid all 3) officials come out with the same thing and the game goes on. Wasn't it the Beatles who sang "I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends"? Sort of similar but with no Yoko! |
Jud, you credit yourself with too much space in JR's head. I'd be willing to bet you don't occupy any space up there.
Truly, all that resides in that space is love for the Yankees, hatred for the Red Sox, and a weird fascination with squirrels and walnuts. Oh, and a grudging respect for Nevadaref. |
Quote:
There's a phrase you don't see every day. :D |
Quote:
And if I was worried about the company I keep, I would quit "hanging" with Snaqwells and M&M Guy!!:D:D:D |
Quote:
Now that today's episode of Dr. Phil is over, can we resume regular programming? :D |
Quote:
I think we agree on the basic principles. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You are the C on a fast break. The play is 1 v 1 with the defender trailing after the ball was stolen. The offensive player jumps from the block on the other side of the lane from you which is only a few feet in front of the Lead. The Lead is in good position and in front of the action. The defender comes from your side of the offensive player, but is still positioned well over on the other side of the FT lane, probably only a couple of feet inside the lane. The defender fouls the offensive player by taking a wild arm swing, missing the ball, and smacking the opponent directly in the face. The offensive player and defensive player fall to the floor directly at the feet of the Lead. The Lead has a whistle and a fist in the air. What do you right now, if anything? Do you even blow your whistle on this? |
Quote:
If my partner has great position with the play coming right at him, I have to trust him. I may have blown my whistle but I'm gonna let my partner take the call. If he doesn't want to go with intentional for excessive contact, then he's the one that has to explain it later if an evaluator thought that should have been the correct call. You? |
Quote:
This was a person who I had never officiated with before as he was from another area. This play has been talked about quite a bit in my area as it took place in a State Championship game. That talk has made me question my actions for several months now. It is nice to hear that you support my decision to let him take care of his business. Our third, who was very unhappy with the decision, came all the way down the court from T to talk with the calling official. He informed him that he could elevate that to an intentional. The L responded that the defender made a play for the ball (by rule not something which prevents the defender from being charged with an X) and therefore he didn't wish to go intentional. I stayed out of that conversation. I caught serious flak for my inaction. Anyway, as I wrote I've been mulling this over for several months now and this thread provided me with the perfect opportunity to get a straight opinion from someone who has no stake in the matter. Thanks. |
Quote:
Again, I want to make it clear (because of our past history) that I am not saying you did anything wrong. Simply trying to put a different angle on it. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
- the rule book couldn't be clearer, as you well know. Once your partner makes the call, neither you or the trail can change the call. If he doesn't want to change it, even after getting some input, that's it. - whatinthehell was the trail doing watching a fast break like that? Who was watching the other 8 players in HIS primary? Again this is jmo, but I don't know what more you could have done on that particular play. You did your job. It sureashell wasn't anything I'd ever worry about. |
Quote:
I've never heard that particular complaint from league assignors, evaluators, commissioners, etc. They all want to get every call right, but they also know that ultimately someone has to step up and make a final decision. That's why God made R's. There's one heckuva big difference between "going it alone" and stepping up to make a definitive decision. There's nothing wrong with getting input, but you still have to ultimately make your own calls...and own 'em too. Stopping to take a poll on every close call can mean one heckuva long game.:D |
Quote:
The first paragraph is a nice example of the two schools of thought. Do you go with what you feel is clearly an intentional? Or do you let your partner live and die with the call? This is, with all due respect to Jurassic (and yes I do have respect for him) where calling into questions someones 'nadatudinal constitution' is not the best way to evaluate what transpires. For an argument can be made that for NEVADA to have 'shown his' he should have come right in with an X b/c he clearly felt the foul was intentional. Conversely, you can say that he IS 'showing his" by letting his crew live or die with the call from the L, regardless of what his feelings are about the play. I don't have problem with the way NEVADA handled the situation. I probably would have handled it differently, but so what. Does that make me right and him wrong or vice versa? Nope. And I certainly would respect his decision and explaination and let it go at that. (OK, MAYBE a quick barb here and there, but I would expect the same in return!) Based on the play description, the person I would want some more info from would be the "T". What if any additional information did they provide the calling official with other than "You can upgrade that"? If that is all they did then I have a question as to why even bother? THAT would be what makes a crew look bad and causes problems. Evaluator "So what did you say at your little confab after that hard foul?" T: " I was letting him know that he could upgrade the foul if he wanted to." Evaluator "Did you give him any reason that he might want to do that?" T: "No, just wanted to let him know". Evaluator (thinking to self) - He must be the guy who keeps asking if I want to "Super Size" my order for only .89 more! As if I didn't already know that!!) At least NEVADA was operating according to his principles. |
Quote:
You're going to the extreme here partner. We are not talking about conferencing on every call, that's ludicrous. How often does a potentially intentional/flagrant foul occur in a game? Once? Twice? Every 10 games? I think we'd agree its pretty uncommon and a quick "hey partner I think we may need to upgrade" can take less than five seconds and now everyone knows that we are working together, through everyone's egos to get a play right. In the end, yes, you must live and die with your own whistles, I'm not coming to rescue anyone. But, this is clearly a situation where good partnering can keep us out of alot of trouble. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As rocky, CLH and Judtech mentioned, it's certainly not something that happens all the time, and is not something that should be done on a regular basis. But I believe you brought up the violation situation, and this is similar in many regards. When the calling official makes an OOB call that is clearly missed, the other official can come over and give the calling official information, and it's up to the calling official to change the call, or keep it the same. No one overrules anyone else. It's the same with the breakaway foul situation - if the calling official has a common foul, while it's obvious to one or both of the partners that they missed an important piece of information that could "upgrade" the foul, then those partners should go give the calling official that information. It's still up to the calling official to keep or change their call. Of course, if the partners didn't see the whole play, then there's no additional information to give, and the calling official lives with their call. So, how do I know when to go in and give information? I guess it's kinda like pornography, or obsenity, or Sarah Palin's (grand)son, I just know it when I see it. :) |
Quote:
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Hell, I became an Orlando Magic fan when I found out that they hired Ron Jeremy as their head coach. |
Quote:
Maybe because of the angle, the L didn't see the hit to the face, and giving him that info could've changed his mind on the call. Maybe he did see the hit, and still considered it not excessive enough to make it an intentional. Either way, going to him in that case could only help the situation, and not hurt it in any way. You were right in giving him the initial call, because it sounds like it was in his primary. It would've been wrong for you to come running in with the "X" because you possibly disagreed with the initial call. Also, if there was any reason you did not see the entire play, then you would be correct in not going over to offer any information. That should only happen of you 103% sure. ;) But, if you did in fact see the entire play, and it seemed obvious to you that it should've been an intentional based on the excessive contact to the face, then you should've gone over and given that info to the L. It would still be his call to keep or change, but at least you've supplied him with all the info needed. |
Quote:
My problem with doing that is that it makes my partner look really weak and the coaches then believe that he needs me to call the game for him. I've just ruined his credibility for the rest of the game. Bottom line: Since the play was clearly not in my primary area, I didn't wish to undermine my partner. I know how I would feel if a play happened right in front of me and here came a guy running in from the other side of the court. |
Quote:
You know how hard it is to type with these hairy palms...especially when I'm blind, too? :eek: |
Quote:
But if I made a call that seemed obvious to others that should be different, I would want my partner(s) coming to me to give me that info I somehow missed. I would be just as pissed that my partners let me make a dumb-a$$ call as I would be if they were consistently making calls in my primary. Sure, it's a fine line. And if there's any doubt, don't do it. But if it's definite, tell me how anyone thinks less of a crew when they get together to get a rather obvious call right? |
Quote:
Remember in my case, the calling official actually was consulted by a partner and he chose to stick with his original decision. As it turned out the only way that an X was getting called on this particular play was for another official to have gone ahead and made the call right under this guy's nose. That's not something that I'm comfortable with doing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Again, IMO, the key take away is not THIS play, but a larger issue. Simply put, it is something that should be addressed pregame, especially if you are working with a new crew. For instance, let's say Jurrassic, Nevada and I are working a game together. (I will take a moment to let the EMT's revive Jurassic) ...... During the pregame, regardless who the R is, I would bring into the conversation how we want to handle coverage, double whistles, T's, and 'anything funky' Knowing that their school of thought is different than mine SHOULD not be a problem, and I should be expected to adapt. Conversely, if NEVADA was working with myself and MM, then he should feel comfortable and/or not get offended (which I am thinking he wouldn't) if we handle those situation different then he 'normally' does. (On a side note, if there is ambivelance, the R rules!) Again, to me, it is not about backbone, gonadal fortitude or machismo. It is having 3 people wearing polyesther (or a nice micro mesh) being on the same team, being situationally aware and respecting one another. |
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore, I feel good about not immediately making this call over in my partner's area. The last little thing which I have been pondering is should I also have gone over and attempted to persuade the L to go with the X along with the T. Let me state exactly what I was thinking on the court and you guys can comment, but first allow me to write that I have all of the respect in the world for the official who was the T on this play. He is a former D1 mens official and I have worked with him on a couple of occasions with nothing but the best results. So despite his positioning deep in the backcourt (perhaps FT line extended), he viewed the foul with similar thoughts to mine. [And yes, probably at the expense of not closely watching the other eight players back there with him.] Now right as the foul occurs, I think, "Oh, that was excessive." Then I progressed to other thoughts such as: Does he have it? Ok, he's got the call, but I don't know if he is calling intentional or not because he is from somewhere else and I am not familiar with his mechanics. Perhaps he doesn't know to use the crossed arms signal or maybe they don't do that in his area. I'll make sure that the players are okay and that nothing further happens. [They get up without incident.] Now just as I consider going over and asking the L if he has that as intentional, I see the T come down to speak with him as he is heading to table and they meet at the 28 foot line, so I think, "Okay, [name deleted] has this." I can hear the entire conversation while standing on the other side of the FT lane and keeping an eye on the players. He says almost exactly what I would have said, so I stay where I am. Once I understood that the L was not going to upgrade to intentional, I didn't really think that I could lend any more to the situation than the T already did. At that point I wasn't going to chase him to the table and further hold up the proceedings. I just let it go and moved on. He had already conversed with one of his partners. It never occurred to me that he wouldn't accept information from this guy because he was the T at the time, but would from me because I happened to be the C. I seriously doubt that crossed the mind of the calling official either. I view the T as a very strong official and felt that the message had been delivered loud and clear. On the other hand, I can't help but think that if all three of us had gotten together that while it would have been obvious to everyone in the building that the two of us were attempting to alter his decision, and from that perspective I doubt that would have been a good thing for the rest of the game, it is entirely possible that the two of us combined would have been successful in getting the final decision to be an intentional foul. So the big question is would it have been worth it from a credibility standpoint as well as risking this partner going into the tank for the remainder of the game just to reward the shooting team with one more possession? While I don't believe that the absolute correct call was made on this particular play, perhaps a few good calls later in the game were made by this individual solely because he had the confidence that his partners will willing to support him and trust him to make calls in his area. In the end, that may have had more impact upon the game. |
It's a great situation to pre-game so everyone is on the same sheet of music.
|
:p
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not sure that the pregame is the answer to this one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Once the calling official said that he was gonna stick with a normal shooting foul over the intentional, the conversation is over. |
Quote:
Blah blah bah, pregame, blah starters, blah, hair control device, blah, sock logo's.....How do you guys/gals want to handle hard fouls? Here are my thoughts. If we have a double whistle, and one of us thinks it should be a flagrant or intentional, then lets get together and exchange info and have the PCA official make the call. If you don't want to do that we can just have the PCA handle it on their own. What are you all most comfortable with? Easy peezy, lemon cheezy:D |
Nevada, I will say again that I do not think you did anything wrong. And anyone who is giving you grief about this situation is either a friend of the L in your OP, or is just out to get you for some reason.
You can't go in AFTER your third had a conversation with the L. That would look bad all around and would possibly piss off the L and/or cause him to disappear as you said. My only thought is what I posted before: If you had IMMEDIATELY come across with fist raised and said something about Intentional right then and there, maybe he would have gone with it. Maybe not, but at least your critics would be silenced (as they should be anyway for crying out loud). It's one of those situations where some people (like deranged, psychotic assignors) blame you for something that your P screwed up because "You should be able to take care of business in your games". Not that that ever happened to me.:o Water under the bridge. |
Quote:
You pregame whether or not you would want the secondary official coming in with information or to just let the primary go with what he has. And you pre-game it using the exact same play you had from the championship game. I have colleagues who want that info on the court, not in the lockerroom afterwards. I have others who want to live and die on their own in that situation. Let's change your play and say B1 has purposely grabbed a handful of A1's jersey from the back with one hand while swatting at the ball and hacking A1 with the other. Do you MYOB? That question is mostly rhetorical. My point is, you talk about plays like this, find out what your partners' philosophies are and have a general consensus on how you handle such situations instead of having the 'C' doing one thing and the 'T' something totally different. |
Quote:
I had a good look at my partner and believed that he wasn't screened out and that he had a great view of the play. I don't believe that I could have offered him any information which he didn't already possess (save proper rules knowledge). All that I had was a different opinion and I don't think that it is my job to override his judgment on the court. Quote:
|
I appreciate all the info. The c following the play blew his whistle and he said hard foul. I said did he hit his head. He said no. I said just foul. After the game and when questioned. Neither one of us knew the NCAA M rule or signal. We learned and I have discussed this summer and had good understanding with my partners. In computer and will pregame always.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39pm. |