Intentional Foul???

[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.

[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?