Is there a case for this sit?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Disagree. Intent is clearly part of one of the two options...

"specifically DESIGNED to stop or keep the clock from running" (emphasis mine)

Something that is "designed" has intent.

You misunderstand: many officials seem to think that an intentional foul should be called where the foul is "obviously intentional," as opposed to accidental. That's wrong, as you know, and that's what I'm trying to correct for the OP.

You've emphasized the wrong part of the definition above: it's not the mere fact of a design, but the content of it that makes the foul an INT. That is to say, we call an INT not just because the player intended to foul, but because of WHY he intended to foul.

I'm claiming that intent is not sufficient to call an intentional foul; you're arguing that (for one kind of INT) it's necessary. I don't deny that, though my earlier comment that intent is not "part" of intentional fouls is admittedly misleading.