Questionable Call
 

I witnessed this play at an intramural game last night--I wasn't officiating at the time, so I didn't make the call.

Player was behind the arc and jumped up to shoot a 3. A defender was closing in fast and this guy realized it while in the air so instead of shooting the ball, he sort of just cowered and tucked the ball. He landed first, the ball never leaving his hands, and then the defender crashed into him.

Travel?

Yep. And depending on the severity of the crash (and intention of the defender), it could be followed by an intentional technical foul.

I agree with everything except the red...

Why so, tref?

What other criteria would you use to judge such a technical foul?

4-19-3 clearly states: intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. IMHO, the word "excessive" is a better way to describe INTs.

I have a hard time accepting that this is an intentional foul. I understand a foul during a dead ball should carry that label, but if the defender had already started the "fouling action" and was committed to it before the ball became dead...

Logically this seems like it should just be a travel violation followed by a regular personal foul on the defender. I can't prove that from the rules, though.

Logically, that's impossible. The travel makes the ball dead, and you can't have a personal foul during a dead ball (with 2 exceptions, neither of which applies here).

If you call a foul, it must be a technical. And we ignore dead-ball contact unless it's intentional or flagrant.

Did you read what you just quoted? INT fouls are NOT based solely on the severity of the act.

INT fouls are called based on two independent criteria:
1. excessive contact (which seems to be the relevant one here)
2. attempting to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantage

You can have excessive contact that is accidental; you can meet criterion 2 without excessive contact. It's possible to do both at once. The criteria are independent: either one is sufficient to warrant an INT (either personal or technical foul).

Yup, I was just saying that I dont base assessing INT fouls solely on severity & I try to stay away from guessing the intentions of players.

On the play in the OP when you explain it to the coach, "the contact was excessive" should suffice. I didnt think #2 applied here...

So it seems that unless I rule the contact to be more than just a play on the ball, it's just a travel and no foul.

It makes sense to say that if the contact would have been just a regular personal foul had the ball still been live, and the defender was committed to the contact when the ball became dead, that it can't be an intentional foul.

Cant speak for mbyron but I'm not saying that. If its excessive contact its got to be an INT (personal if live ball & technical if dead).

I've seen many plays where the defender chased down the break away & got ALL BALL, but pushed the would be dunker to the ground with his body... INT.

I'm trying to see where what I said contradicts this. Depending on those two criteria, it could be an intentional foul. If neither criteria is met, it's nothing. Nowhere did I say either was the "sole" criteria.

You're right, my badd Snaqs!

That's all I was asking for. :) I can go have lunch now.

If I understand what you are saying correctly, I agree. If it wouldn't be an INT during a live ball, it wouldn't be an INT during a dead ball. The criteria does not change based on the status of the ball.

So, yes...travel, dead ball, contact is ignored (other than the usual game management you would employ after a player gets run over).