Is there a case for this sit?
 

A1 shoots a 3-point attempt and while A1 is airborn, B1 pushes A2 into A1 causing A1 to fall to the floor. I called a foul on B1 for the push on A2 and awarded the ball OOB nearest the spot of the foul. Coach A wanted to know why it wasn't a shooting foul since the foul obviously affected his shooter. I didn't have an answer, other than that the contact by B1 was on A2 and not on A1, but I really see the coaches point. Any advice?

You called it right. I don't know of any way to get coaches to stop trying to squeeze more out of us on these plays, so take his words with a grain of salt.

4-19-1: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent....... which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements.

The contact in this case hindered A2 in that in kept him from performing his normal offensive movement, which was staying out of A1's way.

Did B1 push A2 intentionally to disrupt the shot? If so, call it an intentional foul.

I used to do this a lot in rec leagues many years ago, and I was never called for a foul a single time. Of course, it could be rec league refs...who knows? :rolleyes:

I thought about that, but really B1 was just pushing through a screen to try and defend A1's shot and was too forceful in pushing A2 into A1. A2 falling into A1 actually made it impossible for B1 to make any contact on A1 or we may have had a multiple foul situation.

No, don't. As described, that play meets neither criterion for an intentional foul.

I agree with mbyron.

I would have to be positive it was intentional before I'd pull out the X.

Would have been a false multiple foul, actually. And I wouldn't hesitate to call it if a defender forced his way (illegally) through a screen and proceded to foul the shooter (assuming the try had begun prior to the first foul.)

[QUOTE=Corndog89;712233]Did B1 push A2 intentionally to disrupt the shot? If so, call it an intentional foul.{/QUOTE]

The OP doesn't necessarily address the intent of B1, but I agree there was no intent as described. However, what if B1 did push A2 with the clear intent to knock him into A1 to disrupt A1's shot? Would that not fit the criterion?

My intent was not to tell Stosh what to do, but to ask him if there was intent, thereby presenting another possible option. I should have more precisely stated "If so, you could call it an intentional foul."

There are 2 ways for a foul to be an intentional foul, and the intent -- clear or otherwise -- of the fouler is not part of either one.

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.

For whatever it's worth, I did not see any intent to direct A2 into A1 on the part of B1. B1 was simply pushing through a screen (legally) set by A2 in an attempt to defend A1's shot, but in doing so, forced A2 into airborn shooter
A1, causing A1 to fall to the floor. The contact, IMO ,was not an Intentional Foul by definition.