Looking for Constructive Criticism/Advice

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by 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.

If B1 was making a legitimate play to try to draw the charge, then it may have just been a blocking foul.

If B1 was just in there to cause contact to make A1 miss the shot, you may have a case for an intentional foul.

If said contact was excessive, then you may have a case for an intentional (hard) foul.

I guess that we all had to be there?

The way I saw it, he wasn't making a legitimate attempt to draw a charge. The part in red is what I think might apply.

[APG]

I can't really envision the play as you described being intentional but it's hard to say without seeing the play (cliché I know). Players attempt to draw a charge all the time, even when they realistically have no opportunity to do so. In doing so, they will move underneath offensive players after they are airborne. The only way I could see calling anything other than a common foul on this type of play is if the defender moves under the airborne offensive player and submarines the player.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

The only way I could see calling anything other than a common foul on this type of play is if the defender moves under the airborne offensive player and submarines the player.

I don't believe that this play can ever be a common foul, unless A1 is charged with a player control foul.

"A1 is on a fast break, goes up for the layup."

4-19-2: A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.

I would think that from stiffler3492's description, that A1 was "a player trying for a field goal".

[just another ref]

To call this intentional, does the contact have to be excessive or just the result? A1 shooting a layup. B1 arrives too late to do anything but foul.
Slight contact with the airborne shooter results in a flip, a hard landing, and a potential injury. I have no problem with an intentional call here.

This is not a legitimate attempt to play anything.

[stiffler3492]

I'll try to add a little more to the explanation of the play. B1's movements after A1 jumped for the layup resembled more of a hip check than an attempt to take a charge.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

Hip check.

Love the official NFHS signal for this. Here's how the guys on my local board learned to make the proper signal. It was difficult at first, so we had to watch the video over, and over, and over, again.

http://www.youtube.com/v/D1yEc_-J3aQ...s=1&autoplay=1

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Love the official NFHS signal for this. Here's how the guys on my local board learned to make the proper signal. It was difficult at first, so we had to watch the video over, and over, and over, again.

http://www.youtube.com/v/D1yEc_-J3aQ...s=1&autoplay=1

...Nice

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I'll try to add a little more to the explanation of the play. B1's movements after A1 jumped for the layup resembled more of a hip check than an attempt to take a charge.

I have called this type of contact an intentional twice in my career. Once in a Adult Rec league game when A1 jumped for a rebound and B1 purposely hip checked him while in the air. The other in a GV game between bitter rivals in the first few minutes of the game A1 was driving down the lane and B2 came over in help defense and just threw her hip into A1.

[bainsey]

I had a similar play as Stiffler's a couple of years ago.

A1 had the breakaway and easy layup, but B2 was behind her, pushed her down while she was in the air, and A1 girl was in tears when she got up. It was an easy intentional foul.

Coach B still protested, claiming B2 was playing the ball. It was a laughable argument, at best. A coach will often argue this call, not because of its accuracy, but because of its consequence (two shots and the ball).

Just consider the source.

[closetotheedge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

. . . 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. . . .

The way I saw it, he wasn't making a legitimate attempt to draw a charge. The part in red is what I think might apply.

In this case you can't pick out just one phrase from the rule and expect to interpret it properly. The rest of the sentence is key: "specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting."
IMO . . .
If the purpose was to stop the clock by fouling, then you can have an intentional foul.
If the purpose was to hurt the shooter, you have an unsporting T.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by closetotheedge

1) In this case you can't pick out just one phrase from the rule and expect to interpret it properly. The rest of the sentence is key: "specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting."
IMO . . .
If the purpose was to stop the clock by fouling, then you can have an intentional foul.


2)If the purpose was to hurt the shooter, you have an unsporting T.

Where to start....

1) Fouling to stop the clock has got squat to do with whether an intentional personal foul can or should be called. You judge the act, not the intent. From an NFHS POE from the 2005-06 rule book"
Late In The Game:
Fouling is an accepted coaching stategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped.
There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely a coach who yells "foul" instructions to his or her team does not mean that the ensuing foul is automatically an intentional foul- even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials, players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a strategic coaching strategy.

2) Oh my! By rule you can NEVER call an unsporting "T" for a live-ball contact foul. It has to be a personal foul of some kind, your choice. If the intent was to injure someone, then the appropriate call would be a flagrant personal foul. What it can't be is a technical foul of any type.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by closetotheedge

If the purpose was to hurt the shooter, you have an unsporting T a flagrant personal foul.

See correction above