Questionable Call

[JohnDorian37]

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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...

[bainsey]

Why so, tref?

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

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[JohnDorian37]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

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).

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JohnDorian37

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?

Did you ever tell us what the call was?