Intentional or excessive intentional

[Pete]

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

As for signals, just go with the "X," as it's easily recognized.

... unless you forgot to use deodorant that day, in which case use the followup signal in my post above.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... unless you forgot to use deodorant that day, in which case use the followup signal in my post above.

"That call stinks!"

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

"That call stinks!"

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?

Otherwise known as the "It's not fair!" mechanic. It works better if you stomp your feet at the same time.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Otherwise known as the "It's not fair!" mechanic. It works better if you stomp your feet at the same time.

Should you also, hold your breath, puff out your cheecks and cross your eyes?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Can't really make out the excessive foul mechanic.

The official starts with the normal intentional foul signal (the X above the head), and then emphatically brings both arms down to his side to let everyone know that it's a "hard foul" variety of an intentional foul. It's difficult to see the arrows in the image I posted. Sorry. Again, I believe that this is only an approved signal for NCAA-M. I'm sure that one of our NCAA-M Forum members will be along shortly to confirm this. I'm just a lowly high school official.

[Mark Padgett]

I think this is the approved mechanic to indicate an intentional, flagrant, excessive jerk, er, I mean foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

........let everyone know that it's a "hard foul" variety of an intentional foul.

But I don't think it would actually let everyone know anything, because I think this is up there among the least known rules. On this call, before, during, and after the explanation if one is given, the coach goes into the broken record mode: He got the ball........got the ball.........got the ball.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Again, I believe that this is only an approved signal for NCAA-M. I'm sure that one of our NCAA-M Forum members will be along shortly to confirm this.

Confirmed. Not used in NCAA Womens.

[Pantherdreams]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

I disagree. When you call it intentional, the players will think twice before being so careless again. It's a dangerous play and should be discouraged; more importantly, the rules call for it.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. When you call it intentional, the players will think twice before being so careless again. It's a dangerous play and should be discouraged; more importantly, the rules call for it.

We can agree to disagree here.

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.

[Adam]

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.