Intentional Foul???

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

It can't be THAT common. I have rarely, if ever, seen it occur.

B's action, kicking a ball near the floor, is more common than kicking at a ball held by an opponent above his waist.

[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?...)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

I think you are misconstruing "basketball play".


What is or is not a "basketball play" doesn't necessarily depend on whether the action is legal or not but depends on whether the action is generally relative to the play of the game.

• Knocking the ball out of your opponents hands IS a basketball play.
• Using the feet to stop a pass IS a basketball play---it happens regularly and has specified consequences.
• Agressively defending a shot from a poor position knowing that you'll get called for foul is an illegal play but is still a basketball play.
• Two guys posting up and one throwing a hard knee/elbow into the other's gut is NOT a basketball play.
• A player running down the court trailing a fast break by 40 feet and chucking the nearest opponent is NOT a basketball play.
• A player grabbing another player's ponytail and yanking it is NOT a basketball play.
• Using your feet to stop the ball (even in another player's hands) is a basketball play....with defined consequences. I've seen this happen a few times over the years in the context of a loose ball where one player gets the ball and the other is kicking at the ball (not viciously or anything, just trying to keep the other one from getting it).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You are wise beyond your years.

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

How much is ∞ + 1?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How much is ∞ + 1?

Same as ∞ - 1?

[Nevadaref]

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?

I disagree. I believe it clearly was designed to neutralize the opponent's obvious advantageous position and prevent the easy score.

This is an easy intentional foul for me. A player KICKED an opponent, and this isn't a soccer game.

What does it take for you to call an intentional here?
If there was contact with the foot to the head instead of the arm would you deem that excessive?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is an easy intentional foul for me. A player KICKED an opponent, and this isn't a soccer game.

What does it take for you to call an intentional here?
If there was contact with the foot to the head instead of the arm would you deem that excessive?

Is there a difference between the following scenarios?:

- A player tries to block a shot, and ends up slapping the shooter in the face with their open palm.
- A player slaps another player in the face with their open palm, away from the ball, but it is clear the intent was to slap the player.
In both cases, the level and type of contact is exactly the same.

- While diving for loose ball, a player on the floor hits another player with their foot/leg.
- Away from the ball, a player on the floor kicks another player as they try to separate from each other.
In both cases, the level of force and contact are exactly the same.

- A player trying to slide in front of a moving opponent is late getting to the spot and ends up hitting/kicking the opponent with their leg.
- A stationary player setting a screen decides to simply kick the opponent as they run by.
In both cases, the level of force and contact are exactly the same.

Are you saying the intent of the contact has nothing to do with the call (or no-call), and only because the contact was with the leg/foot it has to be an intentional foul?

[refnrev]

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.

Eastersire,
Your argument here just won't hold water. Your mixing apples and oranges. If she's a leaper than you've penalized her for being athletic. And, as you know, in soccer, just because the foot is above the waist, it isn't necesasarily dangerous play. What if her foot is is facing away from the opponent rather than towards it? Where's the danger?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Is there a difference between the following scenarios?:

- A player tries to block a shot, and ends up slapping the shooter in the face with their open palm.
- A player slaps another player in the face with their open palm, away from the ball, but it is clear the intent was to slap the player.
In both cases, the level and type of contact is exactly the same.

- While diving for loose ball, a player on the floor hits another player with their foot/leg.
- Away from the ball, a player on the floor kicks another player as they try to separate from each other.
In both cases, the level of force and contact are exactly the same.

- A player trying to slide in front of a moving opponent is late getting to the spot and ends up hitting/kicking the opponent with their leg.
- A stationary player setting a screen decides to simply kick the opponent as they run by.
In both cases, the level of force and contact are exactly the same.

Are you saying the intent of the contact has nothing to do with the call (or no-call), and only because the contact was with the leg/foot it has to be an intentional foul?

The level of contact can have a great deal to do with it or it can have absolutely nothing to do with deeming a foul to be intentional.

For your plays with an attempt made to contact the ball, the intentional personal foul could be justified by the excessive contact language of rule 4-19-3.

For the plays away from the ball we have the 2nd sentence of that passage.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

B3 ... kicks at the ball, catching A1 on the arm instead. Official blows whistle and calls a foul and indicates two shots

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree. I believe it clearly was designed to neutralize the opponent's obvious advantageous position and prevent the easy score.

This is an easy intentional foul for me. A player KICKED an opponent, and this isn't a soccer game.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

For your plays with an attempt made to contact the ball, the intentional personal foul could be justified by the excessive contact language of rule 4-19-3.

You're contradicting yourself unless you're saying rockyroad's presentation of the play is inaccurate. The situation was that the player was attempting to contact to the bal....but missed.

I'd agree if I felt the defender was simply kicking the other player with no attempt on the ball OR if there were excessive force. Neither were the case in the play presented.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by refnrev

Eastersire,
Your argument here just won't hold water. Your mixing apples and oranges. If she's a leaper than you've penalized her for being athletic. And, as you know, in soccer, just because the foot is above the waist, it isn't necesasarily dangerous play. What if her foot is is facing away from the opponent rather than towards it? Where's the danger?

She kicked the player in the arm. In soccer, I've got a foul and a unsporting behavior caution for a reckless foul. It it was done with any force I've got a foul and a serious foul play send off for excessive force. If she hadn't made contact, I've got a dangerous play.

The point is, even in soccer, an attempt to play a ball being controlled by the opponent above the waist with the foot is going to be a violation even if you miss.

If her foot was away from her opponent, she wouldn't be trying to play the ball and we wouldn't have an issue.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You're contradicting yourself unless you're saying rockyroad's presentation of the play is inaccurate. The situation was that the player was attempting to contact to the bal....but missed.

I'd agree if I felt the defender was simply kicking the other player with no attempt on the ball OR if there were excessive force. Neither were the case in the play presented.

Kicking the ball simply isn't trying to play the ball. The scenario is a second case scenario from your list.

Beyond that, in a sport where intentional leg contact with the ball is disallowed, there is a serious safety issue when players start kicking above their waist. For the players' safety, you need to heavily penalize this act. Even in soccer, this play would be a caution at least, which is half way to an ejection.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

She kicked the player in the arm. In soccer, I've got a foul and a unsporting behavior caution for a reckless foul. It it was done with any force I've got a foul and a serious foul play send off for excessive force. If she hadn't made contact, I've got a dangerous play.

The point is, even in soccer, an attempt to play a ball being controlled by the opponent above the waist with the foot is going to be a violation even if you miss.

If her foot was away from her opponent, she wouldn't be trying to play the ball and we wouldn't have an issue.



Kicking the ball simply isn't trying to play the ball. The scenario is a second case scenario from your list.

Beyond that, in a sport where intentional leg contact with the ball is disallowed, there is a serious safety issue when players start kicking above their waist. For the players' safety, you need to heavily penalize this act. Even in soccer, this play would be a caution at least, which is half way to an ejection.

While the attempt is admirable, comparing rule enforcement reasoning in two different sports doesn't always apply. Would you use the soccer example to penalize a football punter if he kicked a defender in the head on the follow-through on his punt? Would you say dribbling with the hands is ok in soccer, because, hey, it's not only accepted but required in basketball? Perhaps over-the-top examples, but it illustrates the faulty reasoning to compare rule enforcement between sports.

Stick to basketball rules when discussing the game of basketball. Is there any specific basketball rule that tells us to "heavily penalize this act"?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

While the attempt is admirable, comparing rule enforcement reasoning in two different sports doesn't always apply. Would you use the soccer example to penalize a football punter if he kicked a defender in the head on the follow-through on his punt? Would you say dribbling with the hands is ok in soccer, because, hey, it's not only accepted but required in basketball? Perhaps over-the-top examples, but it illustrates the faulty reasoning to compare rule enforcement between sports.

Stick to basketball rules when discussing the game of basketball. Is there any specific basketball rule that tells us to "heavily penalize this act"?

Yes, the rule that says excessive force is an intentional foul. It's a slam dunk (ha) that kicking a standing opponent in the arm is excessive in basketball where kicking the ball at all is illegal. That such an act is heavily penalized in soccer, where kicking the ball is legal, helps clarify for those not accustomed to the dangers of kicking opponents the level of danger B1 has put A1 in.

Failing to call an intentional foul for excessive force in this play is a complete failure of the official to provide for basic player safety.

Beyond that, it is also contact designed to neutralized an opponent's advantageous position which is also an intentional foul. It's ludicrous that we're still discussing this at all. It's no different than the bear hug from behind. There's no possibility of legally contacting the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Yes, the rule that says excessive force is an intentional foul. It's a slam dunk (ha) that kicking a standing opponent in the arm is excessive in basketball where kicking the ball at all is illegal. That such an act is heavily penalized in soccer, where kicking the ball is legal, helps clarify for those not accustomed to the dangers of kicking opponents the level of danger B1 has put A1 in.

Failing to call an intentional foul for excessive force in this play is a complete failure of the official to provide for basic player safety.

Beyond that, it is also contact designed to neutralized an opponent's advantageous position which is also an intentional foul. It's ludicrous that we're still discussing this at all. It's no different than the bear hug from behind. There's no possibility of legally contacting the ball.

I'm sorry, but there's no rules basis for saying it's a slam dunk that kicking is excessive contact. By definition, that requires a level of contact that may or may not accompany a kick.

Having a "possibility of legally contacting the ball" isn't required, anywhere. Otherwise, it would be a defensive violation to kick at the ball regardless of whether contact is made.

That said, a player kicking a ball that's being held is certainly going to be more scrutinized by me, and the bar dropped significantly for an intentional.

I just can't agree that it's an automatic.