Intentional Foul???

[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.