Intentional Foul???

[rockyroad]

A1 steals pass in B's frontcourt and takes off towards her own basket. B3 is chasing her so A1 does the old jump stop/pump fake routine. As B3 is sailing past A1, B3 is looking back over her shoulder and kicks at the ball, catching A1 on the arm instead. Official blows whistle and calls a foul and indicates two shots...A's Coach is standing (in his box) waiting for the official to finish reporting foul and then asks why it is not an intentional foul. Official responds that the defender was making a play on the ball, to which the Coach says "How can she be making a play on the ball with her foot?"

Now official is thinking about it and is wondering if this should have been an intentional foul. So what do we think?

[ranjo]

At first I thought, Naaa just leave it alone. Then I imagined a seniero where a player was on the floor with a ball and another player tried to kick the ball away from him and accidentally kicked him in the arm.

In my humble opinion - Intentional foul

[Jurassic Referee]

It's not a basketball play. And you sureashell want to discourage her from ever pulling that nonsense again...before she hurts someone. Intentional personal foul and a pep talk to her at the same time about possibly causing an injury sounds just about right to me. That should get the message across.

[M&M Guy]

At first I thought, Naaa, just leave it alone.

But then the coach's comment got me to thinking - can a player make a play on the ball with her foot? Sure she can, but it would be a violation if the foot hit the ball. Well, what about just committing a common foul with a foot? Sure, there could be a trip. So, simply making the statement that it has to be an intentional foul "sole-y" because the player used her foot isn't really true.

Now, of course, if you think the player used excessive force in trying to kick the ball or the player, of course there could be an intentional or flagrant call there. But, just as you described it, it sounded like the defender was simply using her leg as a reaction while flying by. So, in that case, I still think, Naaa, just leave it alone and call the common foul.

[rockyroad]

Pretty much my thoughts also - about 15 seconds after I reported it to the table as a common foul and we were shooting the first free throw.

Crap - I hate it when the brain kicks in too late.

In the locker room after the game, my two partners were split on it. One said absolutely an intentional, and the other said no way...

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's not a basketball play. And you sureashell want to discourage her from ever pulling that nonsense again...before she hurts someone. Intentional personal foul and a pep talk to her at the same time about possibly causing an injury sounds just about right to me. That should get the message across.

And maybe that's a "had to be there" kind of play? While I agree the action of kicking towards an opponent could very well be considered an intentional, and possibly flagrant, it didn't sound like that was what happened.

For example, if a defender kicked at a ball to block a bounce pass, and ended up kicking another player in the process, would that be an intentional foul?

[PG_Ref]

If you determined the "kick" was a foul, what foul mechanic would you use(NFHS)?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

At first I thought, Naaa, just leave it alone.

But then the coach's comment got me to thinking - can a player make a play on the ball with her foot? Sure she can, but it would be a violation if the foot hit the ball. Well, what about just committing a common foul with a foot? Sure, there could be a trip. So, simply making the statement that it has to be an intentional foul "sole-y" because the player used her foot isn't really true.

Now, of course, if you think the player used excessive force in trying to kick the ball or the player, of course there could be an intentional or flagrant call there. But, just as you described it, it sounded like the defender was simply using her leg as a reaction while flying by. So, in that case, I still think, Naaa, just leave it alone and call the common foul.

Oh great...now I am second-guessing my second-guessing.

Thanks a lot, Jim.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

If you determined the "kick" was a foul, what foul mechanic would you use(NFHS)?

I just used the hit/hack/illegal use of the hands signal. Everyone knew what she had done since it was wide open to all viewers. Although we did make up a few signals in the locker room afterwards...none of which I would ever use on the court!!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Oh great...now I am second-guessing my second-guessing.

Thanks a lot, Jim.

No problem.

If you need me for anything else, I'll be right here.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I just used the hit/hack/illegal use of the hands signal. Everyone knew what she had done since it was wide open to all viewers. Although we did make up a few signals in the locker room afterwards...none of which I would ever use on the court!!

That's what I would use as well for a common foul. If you think there's any doubt as to others knowing what actually happened, you could communicate that at the table with a few extra words. Of course, an intentional would have it's own signal.

[Camron Rust]

I don't think it fits the definition of intentional.

• It wasn't excessive contact.
• It wasn't a deliberate foul designed to stop the the clock.
• It wasn't contact designed to neutralized an opponents advantageous position.

It was merely an attempt to block the shot that failed. Just because it was with an illegal appendage doesn't make it an intentional foul when it contacts the arm instead of the ball.


On an unrelated angle...If the player, with that foot, had contacted the ball instead of the arm, would have you called a kicked ball and killed the shot?

[Eastshire]

If I put on my soccer referee hat for a moment, I would tell you having your foot above your waist that close to an opponent is (likely) a violation for dangerous play even without making contact and that in a sport where you're supposed to use your foot.

In basketball, I'd say contacting a standing opponent above the waist with your foot is excessive force. There is significant chance of injury to A1 and no legal purpose to the foot being that high. Give the intentional and remind the player to keep her feet down.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

On an unrelated angle...If the player, with that foot, had contacted the ball instead of the arm, would have you called a kicked ball and killed the shot?

Hmm, perhaps a delayed violation on an airborne shooter? Ignore the violation if she makes the shot?

(Ok, I suppose I should be careful in case there are any newbies or coaches out there who might think I'm serious...)

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

If I put on my soccer referee hat for a moment, I would tell you having your foot above your waist that close to an opponent is (likely) a violation for dangerous play even without making contact and that in a sport where you're supposed to use your foot.

In basketball, I'd say contacting a standing opponent above the waist with your foot is excessive force. There is significant chance of injury to A1 and no legal purpose to the foot being that high. Give the intentional and remind the player to keep her feet down.

While I don't disagree with your general premise, how do you regulate players who can jump? What if a defender jumps to block a shot, and their foot makes contact with the other player above the waist, you would consider their foot too high and call an intentional?