Intentional Foul???
 

A1 steals pass in B's frontcourt and takes off towards her own basket. B3 is chasing her so A1 does the old jump stop/pump fake routine. As B3 is sailing past A1, B3 is looking back over her shoulder and kicks at the ball, catching A1 on the arm instead. Official blows whistle and calls a foul and indicates two shots...A's Coach is standing (in his box) waiting for the official to finish reporting foul and then asks why it is not an intentional foul. Official responds that the defender was making a play on the ball, to which the Coach says "How can she be making a play on the ball with her foot?"

Now official is thinking about it and is wondering if this should have been an intentional foul. So what do we think?

At first I thought, Naaa just leave it alone. Then I imagined a seniero where a player was on the floor with a ball and another player tried to kick the ball away from him and accidentally kicked him in the arm.

In my humble opinion - Intentional foul

It's not a basketball play. And you sureashell want to discourage her from ever pulling that nonsense again...before she hurts someone. Intentional personal foul and a pep talk to her at the same time about possibly causing an injury sounds just about right to me. That should get the message across.

At first I thought, Naaa, just leave it alone. :D

But then the coach's comment got me to thinking - can a player make a play on the ball with her foot? Sure she can, but it would be a violation if the foot hit the ball. Well, what about just committing a common foul with a foot? Sure, there could be a trip. So, simply making the statement that it has to be an intentional foul "sole-y" because the player used her foot isn't really true.

Now, of course, if you think the player used excessive force in trying to kick the ball or the player, of course there could be an intentional or flagrant call there. But, just as you described it, it sounded like the defender was simply using her leg as a reaction while flying by. So, in that case, I still think, Naaa, just leave it alone and call the common foul. :)

Pretty much my thoughts also - about 15 seconds after I reported it to the table as a common foul and we were shooting the first free throw.

Crap - I hate it when the brain kicks in too late.

In the locker room after the game, my two partners were split on it. One said absolutely an intentional, and the other said no way...

And maybe that's a "had to be there" kind of play? While I agree the action of kicking towards an opponent could very well be considered an intentional, and possibly flagrant, it didn't sound like that was what happened.

For example, if a defender kicked at a ball to block a bounce pass, and ended up kicking another player in the process, would that be an intentional foul?

If you determined the "kick" was a foul, what foul mechanic would you use(NFHS)?

Oh great...now I am second-guessing my second-guessing.

Thanks a lot, Jim.:mad:

I just used the hit/hack/illegal use of the hands signal. Everyone knew what she had done since it was wide open to all viewers. Although we did make up a few signals in the locker room afterwards...none of which I would ever use on the court!!:o

No problem.

If you need me for anything else, I'll be right here. ;)

:D

That's what I would use as well for a common foul. If you think there's any doubt as to others knowing what actually happened, you could communicate that at the table with a few extra words. Of course, an intentional would have it's own signal.

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? :D

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.

Hmm, perhaps a delayed violation on an airborne shooter? Ignore the violation if she makes the shot? :D

(Ok, I suppose I should be careful in case there are any newbies or coaches out there who might think I'm serious...)

While I don't disagree with your general premise, how do you regulate players who can jump? What if a defender jumps to block a shot, and their foot makes contact with the other player above the waist, you would consider their foot too high and call an intentional?

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.

First, we're talking about an outstanding vertical leap if he's getting his feet above his opponent's waist by simply jumping. If we assume a player's waist approximately half his height and the shortest basketball player found with any regularity at all is 5' 8" (or 68"), your talking about a 34" vertical leap minimum and that's elite of the elite NBA numbers according to the quick Google search result I just did. It's not likely to happen very often.

I think if a jumper makes contact with his foot while in a near vertical position (as opposed to reaching out/up with the foot) you have a common foul. It's the attempt to play the ball/player with the foot that's dangerous.

That's how I'm leaning. You can always go with "excessive force" if the foot made excessive contact, hence the intentional foul.

I think you'd have to. If you block the shot with an arm, there's a chance you can recover the ball. If you use the leg, the consequence is that the other team gets the ball automatically.

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.

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.

no

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.

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.

If someone in my game loses a leg, we probably have a flagrant foul and much more. :eek:

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).

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.

Intentionally?

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.

Nice catch, Cam. Thanks.

Why can't it be both?

There's no rule against attempting to play the ball with the leg, unless the ball makes contact with the leg. The leg-ball contact has its own consequence. Without contact, there's no consequence.

Then, you'd have to judge the excessive nature of any leg-arm contact. If you think that any such contact is excessive, then I suppose you have a ground for 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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice. :D

Traveling anyone?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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?...)

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).

How much is ∞ + 1?

Same as ∞ - 1?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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"?

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.

My points exactly.

So you're willing to accept players kicking each other above the waist as part of the game of basketball?

I'm not Snaqs, but where did he say that?

It's the end result of treating it as a common foul. Players will do things that are common fouls in order to stop baskets. There are simply less expected points from 2 free throws than a layup.

If kicking is an acceptable (common) foul, it will be added to that arsenal of moves used to foul players breaking away. I'm not saying it will be done often. But it will be done regularly.

It's a player safety issue. Kicking at players is excessive for basketball.

That's your take-away from my refusal to call this automatic? Seriously?

I think I'm on record as saying I would have called this play intentional; but I'm not basing that on reasoning from soccre roules.

Kicking at the ball happens all the time, it's part of the game. As an outnumbered defender on fast breaks, I used it all the time back in high school. I used it to prevent post passes.

In the OP, it's a defender using feet because of poor positioning; not really much different in theory than a single defender using it during a fast break to make the offense set up again.

The only difference is that in the OP, the offense is "holding" the ball when the kick attempt is made. I'm less inclined to call that a common or shooting foul because of safety concerns; but that inclination has really little to do with whether it's above or below the waste.

Oh?

Does that mean that we should simply ignore NFHS rule 4-27-2 which states that severe contact may also be incidental contact?

And do we also ignore NFHS rule 4-40-7 which states the exact same thing about severe contact?

Whether a foul is intentional or flagrant in nature was, is and always will be a judgment call.

It can be.

But since your comment is an absolute, can you point me to the rule or case play that backs up that statement?

Well, she actually "caught the arm". I think there is an implied level of contact here that, while it is sufficient for a foul, is really minimal. Yet, you're taking it to the level of excessive.

And this is NOT soccer.

Sure it is. I don't see how an attempt to contact the ball can be construed as anything but playing the ball. It is not much different than a player swatting near a ball that the opponent has completely wrapped up. There is no chance to actually contact the ball and a foul is the only likely result....yet that is playing the ball.

There was NO hint in the OP that the force was excessive. In fact, the wording in the OP implied that the contact was slight.

If the same amount of contact had occurred with the arm, would it have been intentional? No. Contact is excessive or not based on the amount of contact, not which limbs are involved.

The contact wasn't designed at all, it was unintentional. The design was to knock the ball out of the opponent's hands. That part of the intentional rule is for contact that is intended for the sole purpose of contact alone to prevent the player from being able to make any sort of play.
Legally contacting the ball is not necessary....was the purpose of the action to contact the ball or to simply contact the player? The OP was pretty clear on that.
.
No one said that. The player didn't "kick" the player. If they had "kicked" the player, it would probably be a flagrant foul. In this play, they kicked at the ball and missed....then made contact with a player's arm.

Let me add this - if the contact in the original situation had been "excessive" and ripped the shooter's arm off or knocked her down, then I would not have need to post the question. As it was, the "kick" to the arm was enough to knock the shooter's right arm off the ball and cause her to lose control of the ball as she was beginning her habitual shooting motion.

So the OP is NOT a case of excessive force or anything like that. Had the defender kicked the shooter in the head, the chest, etc. - easy Int. call...so I guess my question (which has gotten several different answers on here and from friends I have discussed it with in person) is "Should the mere fact that she kicked the shooter be an Int. foul as kicking is not really making a play on the ball?"

Consensus I have come up with is leaning heavily toward "No, but"...

Fisting ???
 

Same reason for the "old not striking the ball with a fist" rule.

Gasoline, Meet Fire ...
 

NFHS 4-18-1: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as: An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

The implication in this rule is that the target is another player, not the ball.

Yeah, the growing consensus seems to be: kicking an opponent is not an automatic INT/flagrant foul, but the bar is lowered significantly due to this not being a "basketball play."