Intentional Foul???

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by 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?

Camron, I think it WAS contact designed to neutralize an advantageous position. The defender was clearly faked out and sailing past - she knew she was beat - and reached back with her foot and kicked the shooter on the arm. Seems to me that she did it exactly to neutralize the opponents advantage. That's why I'm kicking myself for NOT calling it Intentional.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Camron, I think it WAS contact designed to neutralize an advantageous position. The defender was clearly faked out and sailing past - she knew she was beat - and reached back with her foot and kicked the shooter on the arm. Seems to me that she did it exactly to neutralize the opponents advantage. That's why I'm kicking myself for NOT calling it Intentional.

This is a good point, and I'm inclined to go with official's judgment here. If you think it was an attempt to neutralize an opponent's obviously advantageous position, then go ahead with the INT.

But I disagree with the idea of calling an INT just because it's "not a basketball play." There's no rules basis for that idea, and it's not synonymous with neutralizing obvious advantage.

But "not a basketball play" IS relevant: the defender loses all benefit of the doubt in a play like this, and could be hit with an INT or flagrant foul -- especially in a "warm" game, kicking could easily be interpreted as fighting.

So although "not a basketball play" does not by itself warrant the INT, I think it lowers the bar for INT or flagrant.

[Adam]

Would you call an INT if the defender used a fist instead? Assuming they missed the ball and hit the shooter's arm instead, but did not cause excessive contact?

I'm inclined to go with an INT here for the same reason it's a violation to kick or punch the ball to begin with. It's a safety issue.

Kicking at a loose ball, a thrown pass, or even a dribbled ball, is one thing. Kicking at a ball that's being held by an opponent is quite another risk level, IMO.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Would you call an INT if the defender used a fist instead? Assuming they missed the ball and hit the shooter's arm instead, but did not cause excessive contact?

no

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Would you call an INT if the defender used a fist instead? Assuming they missed the ball and hit the shooter's arm instead, but did not cause excessive contact?

I'm inclined to go with an INT here for the same reason it's a violation to kick or punch the ball to begin with. It's a safety issue.

Kicking at a loose ball, a thrown pass, or even a dribbled ball, is one thing. Kicking at a ball that's being held by an opponent is quite another risk level, IMO.

Making contact with a fist might in itself constitute excessive contact, or might be fighting. Once again, "not a basketball play" (NABP) lowers the bar. Call the INT, discourage the behavior, prevent problems.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is a good point, and I'm inclined to go with official's judgment here. If you think it was an attempt to neutralize an opponent's obviously advantageous position, then go ahead with the INT.

But I disagree with the idea of calling an INT just because it's "not a basketball play." There's no rules basis for that idea, and it's not synonymous with neutralizing obvious advantage.

But "not a basketball play" IS relevant: the defender loses all benefit of the doubt in a play like this, and could be hit with an INT or flagrant foul -- especially in a "warm" game, kicking could easily be interpreted as fighting.

So although "not a basketball play" does not by itself warrant the INT, I think it lowers the bar for INT or flagrant.

I think the "not a basketball play" comes in where the defender knows that regardless of what she makes contact with, be it ball or A1, she will violate or foul. Therefore B1 knowingly fouled without attempt to play the ball. That's a good fit for an intentional foul.

Beyond that, high kicking is a dangerous act which puts the opponent as well as the kicker herself at significant risk of injury. It's a foul committed with excessive force.

Take your pick, but either way I think you've got an intentional.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Camron, I think it WAS contact designed to neutralize an advantageous position. The defender was clearly faked out and sailing past - she knew she was beat - and reached back with her foot and kicked the shooter on the arm. Seems to me that she did it exactly to neutralize the opponents advantage. That's why I'm kicking myself for NOT calling it Intentional.

In the OP, you said the player kicked at the ball, missed, but got the arm. Here, you're implying they were trying to kick the arm.

That, to me, makes all the difference.

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

If the player was simply trying to kick the arm/player, I agree, intentional....perhaps flagrant if the kick was with enough force.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In the OP, you said the player kicked at the ball, missed, but got the arm. Here, you're implying they were trying to kick the arm.

That, to me, makes all the difference.

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

If the player was simply trying to kick the arm/player, I agree, intentional....perhaps flagrant if the kick was with enough force.

No, I don't want to imply that...she kicked AT the ball, but misjudged (I guess) and ended up kicking the shooter's arm instead.

I just don't know about this one...I kind of OK with calling the common foul, and kind of thinking that I should have called it Intentional.

Completely undecided at this point...still waiting for some one to give me a concrete, absolutely always true interpretation on this type of play (I know...not gonna happen).

[Adam]

Well, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with allowing a defender to kick at a ball that's in the grasp of an opponent without imposing the fullest legitimate penalty.

If she did succeed in kicking the ball but failed to knock it out of the shooter's hand; I'd be inclined to delay calling the violation.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

In the OP, you said the player kicked at the ball, missed, but got the arm. Here, you're implying they were trying to kick the arm.

That, to me, makes all the difference.

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

If the player was simply trying to kick the arm/player, I agree, intentional....perhaps flagrant if the kick was with enough force.

Kicking at the ball is not an attempt to play the ball. It is an attempt to violate. She intentionally tried to break the rules and made a contact foul with a high probability of injury to the offended player. I'm not sure what more you need here.

[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.)

[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.

[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.