Intentional Foul???

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

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?

This play could be called a "basketball" type play, where the other one couldn't... imo. Soooooo, it goes right back to basics. And the basic premise is that all intentional and flagrant foul calls are judgment calls.

This one could be judged a common personal foul imo.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

This play could be called a "basketball" type play, where the other one couldn't... imo. Soooooo, it goes right back to basics. And the basic premise is that all intentional and flagrant foul calls are judgment calls.

This one could be judged a common personal foul imo.

You are wise beyond your years.

(Wait a minute, can anyone ever be THAT wise?...)