Intentional Foul???

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

An attempt to play the ball that results in contact short of excessive force just can't be an intentional foul.

Here's my problem with this: in basketball, there's no such thing as a (legal) attempt to play the ball with the foot.

As such, I think the foul cannot be common, and we should always go INT or flagrant with this kind of contact. Every contact with the foot will necessarily be excessive, because there's no possibility of non-excessive contact with the foot.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Here's my problem with this: in basketball, there's no such thing as a (legal) attempt to play the ball with the foot.

As such, I think the foul cannot be common, and we should always go INT or flagrant with this kind of contact. Every contact with the foot will necessarily be excessive, because there's no possibility of non-excessive contact with the foot.

really?

A1 is sitting on the floor. The loose ball is near A1. B2 reaches for the ball. A1 pulls the ball with his/her legs and makes contact with B2's arms.

IF on A1?

Or, A1 sets a screen and sticks out the leg in doing so. Automatic IF?

On the OP, I might be more likely to judge it to be an IF, but I'm still using the general criteria in the book -- excessive contact, or non-playing the ball. I didn't read that any of that happened.

(On a "normal" play, benefit of the doubt to a "common" foul; on this play, benefit of the doubt to an intentional foul.)

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Here's my problem with this: in basketball, there's no such thing as a (legal) attempt to play the ball with the foot.

Actually, 4-29 says there's no such thing as a legal, intentional striking of the ball with the foot. You can attempt all you want. If you miss, there's no violation.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

really?

A1 is sitting on the floor. The loose ball is near A1. B2 reaches for the ball. A1 pulls the ball with his/her legs and makes contact with B2's arms.

IF on A1?

Or, A1 sets a screen and sticks out the leg in doing so. Automatic IF?

On the OP, I might be more likely to judge it to be an IF, but I'm still using the general criteria in the book -- excessive contact, or non-playing the ball. I didn't read that any of that happened.

(On a "normal" play, benefit of the doubt to a "common" foul; on this play, benefit of the doubt to an intentional foul.)

No, sounds like a kicking violation. Still not a legal play on the ball with the feet.

No, sounds like a TC foul. Still not a legal play on the ball with the feet.

I'm not sure which claim of mine you meant to challenge with "really?" Maybe the idea that all deliberate contact with the feet should be considered excessive? Your proposed counterexamples involve the leg, not the foot, or accidental contact, or opponent contacting foot rather than foot contacting opponent. None of these challenges my claim.

I had initially (post 19) stated something like your benefit of the doubt test (probably where you got the idea!). But I think on reflection that it should be stronger than that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

No, sounds like a kicking violation. Still not a legal play on the ball with the feet.

No, sounds like a TC foul. Still not a legal play on the ball with the feet.

I'm not sure which claim of mine you meant to challenge with "really?" Maybe the idea that all deliberate contact with the feet should be considered excessive? Your proposed counterexamples involve the leg, not the foot, or accidental contact, or opponent contacting foot rather than foot contacting opponent. None of these challenges my claim.

I had initially (post 19) stated something like your benefit of the doubt test (probably where you got the idea!). But I think on reflection that it should be stronger than that.

Personally, the difference between bob's play and the OP is that in bob's play, the ball is loose rather than being held by an opponent. That's where I make my distinction, philosophically speaking.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Here's my problem with this: in basketball, there's no such thing as a (legal) attempt to play the ball with the foot.

As such, I think the foul cannot be common, and we should always go INT or flagrant with this kind of contact. Every contact with the foot will necessarily be excessive, because there's no possibility of non-excessive contact with the foot.

Here are my questions to you, based on the above:

If there's no such thing as a legal attempt to play the ball with the foot, what is the call if a player does indeed attempt, but misses? If the attempt itself is not legal, then shouldn't there be a call of some kind? What would that call be?

If every contact with the foot is indeed excessive, then how come, in Bob's example, you would only rule a TC (common) foul? Or, in Bob's first example, if the player makes contact with another player with their foot while trying to gather a ball on the floor (and for conversation's sake, let's say they haven't made contact with the ball yet to have the violation), would that automatically be an intentional foul?

I think Bob's point, and mine too, is that while the bar may be a little lower in determining excessive contact, there is no rule basis for saying the absolute of all purposeful contact with a foot or leg is automatically excessive, and therefore should only be intentional or flagrant. It's still a judgement call, and a common foul is still very much an option.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

If there's no such thing as a legal attempt to play the ball with the foot, what is the call if a player does indeed attempt, but misses? If the attempt itself is not legal, then shouldn't there be a call of some kind? What would that call be?

Channeling my vast rules knowledge as well as my inner Nevada, I'd say that it's a technical foul for an non-contact unsporting act during a live ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Channeling my vast rules knowledge as well as my inner Nevada, I'd say that it's a technical foul for an non-contact unsporting act during a live ball.

Nah, just call a blocking foul to send the message.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Channeling my vast rules knowledge as well as my inner Nevada, I'd say that it's a technical foul for an non-contact unsporting act during a live ball.

Nice.

[Camron Rust]

Traveling anyone?

[Camron Rust]

New play...

A1 attempts a bounce pass to A4. Pass is low. A4 reaches down to get the ball. B4, getting caught out of position, kicks at the ball like many defenders do to stop a pass into the post that they can't get with their hands. A4 grabs the ball just before B4's foot gets there and B4's foot gets A4's arm instead of the ball.

Thoughts? Intentional or just common?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

New play...

A1 attempts a bounce pass to A4. Pass is low. A4 reaches down to get the ball. B4, getting caught out of position, kicks at the ball like many defenders do to stop a pass into the post that they can't get with their hands. A4 grabs the ball just before B4's foot gets there and B4's foot gets A4's arm instead of the ball.

Thoughts? Intentional or just common?

I am stuck in limbo again...I can see justification to call it either way, and would really be OK with either one being called. I must be "Intentional Foul Confused".

I need some of Padgett's meds...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

New play...

A1 attempts a bounce pass to A4. Pass is low. A4 reaches down to get the ball. B4, getting caught out of position, kicks at the ball like many defenders do to stop a pass into the post that they can't get with their hands. A4 grabs the ball just before B4's foot gets there and B4's foot gets A4's arm instead of the ball.

Thoughts? Intentional or just common?

First thought, common here. Gotta say, it would be hard to swallow the whistle if A4 was to play through it and have an easy shot, though.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

New play...

A1 attempts a bounce pass to A4. Pass is low. A4 reaches down to get the ball. B4, getting caught out of position, kicks at the ball like many defenders do to stop a pass into the post that they can't get with their hands. A4 grabs the ball just before B4's foot gets there and B4's foot gets A4's arm instead of the ball.

Thoughts? Intentional or just common?

My intuition is that this is a common foul. I guess I'd distinguish it from the OP based on the fact that in your play B4 intends to kick a pass rather than a ball in player possession. It's a clearer case of accidental contact.

On the other hand, it's still not a "basketball play," since there's no way for the kick to legally contact the ball. It is more common, however, and maybe that warrants some leeway.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by mbyron

My intuition is that this is a common foul. I guess I'd distinguish it from the OP based on the fact that in your play B4 intends to kick a pass rather than a ball in player possession. It's a clearer case of accidental contact.

On the other hand, it's still not a "basketball play," since there's no way for the kick to legally contact the ball. It is more common, however, and maybe that warrants some leeway.

It can't be THAT common. I have rarely, if ever, seen it occur.