Sub for the shooter

[Splute]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

^ What AGP said.

B just has to play poor defense for a blink. A legitimate INT foul would look much worse.

I had it happen once in a game an hour away. When I realized what happened, the former coach in me said "great strategy".

The play you describe is the exact definition of an intentional foul. I am with mbyron and this would be an easy intentional foul.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes
an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Splute

The play you describe is the exact definition of an intentional foul. I am with mbyron and this would be an easy intentional foul.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes
an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

You're missing the picture.

The intent was to steal the ball, when B knowingly has a low success rate. The outcome is the clock not starting. As long as it's a legitimate attempt, imho, calling and INT is an incorrect call.

FIBA does have a rule to address this, but only in the last 2 minutes, and only while the ball is still in the thrower-in's hands. In FIBA, this is by rule their nearest equivalent of a cross between a T and an INT.

In Fed, we still use our judgment as to what type of foul to call.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

You're missing the picture.

The intent was to steal the ball, when B knowingly has a low success rate. The outcome is the clock not starting. As long as it's a legitimate attempt, imho, calling and INT is an incorrect call.

How can you have a legitimate attempt to steal the ball from a cutter?

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

B should have "held" an A cutter before the ball became touched in bounds. That way, no time comes off the clock.

There's a legitimate play where the foul occurs immediately after the ball is released by the thrower. And there's an intentional foul that occurs before the ball is released. Your original play sounded more like the latter to me, though perhaps that's not what you intended.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How can you have a legitimate attempt to steal the ball from a cutter?

You can have a legitimate attempt to stop the cutter from getting open, leading to a five-second violation.

It's not automatically intentional.

[Jeremy Hohn]

Yes IMO to go automatically intentional in this play is being over-officious. Especially if it is hard deny and there isn't any shirt grabbing or other "non-basketball" action.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You can have a legitimate attempt to stop the cutter from getting open, leading to a five-second violation.

It's not automatically intentional.

Exactly. It happens all the time throughout the game, and we never think twice about calling it a common foul. Suddenly, in the last minute, people want to change the way they call it just because the clock stops on the call.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How can you have a legitimate attempt to steal the ball from a cutter?

Once the thrower-in has released the ball, they can no longer affect the outcome of the pass (unless the pass is really really piss-poor). So then the cutter (to the ball) is at that moment, responsible for completing the in bounds pass. So "steal from the cutter" means to prevent the successful in bounds pass - either by a real steal or a legitimate attempt at a low-success chance of a steal.

Originally Posted by mbyron

There's a legitimate play where the foul occurs immediately after the ball is released by the thrower. And there's an intentional foul that occurs before the ball is released. Your original play sounded more like the latter to me, though perhaps that's not what you intended.

In my OP, I did mention "before the ball it touched in bounds" for when the foul should happen. I could have said "airborne after the release".

[APG]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

You're missing the picture.

The intent was to steal the ball, when B knowingly has a low success rate. The outcome is the clock not starting. As long as it's a legitimate attempt, imho, calling and INT is an incorrect call.

FIBA does have a rule to address this, but only in the last 2 minutes, and only while the ball is still in the thrower-in's hands. In FIBA, this is by rule their nearest equivalent of a cross between a T and an INT.

In Fed, we still use our judgment as to what type of foul to call.

In the NBA as well, any foul before the ball is released on the throw-in is automatically two shots unless under two minutes in the 4th/overtime where it's an away from the play foul meaning any player on the court gets to shoot one free throw plus retain possession of the ball.

And Splute, the rule says specifically designed to keep the clock from starting. That doesn't mean any foul. We have to use our judgement. It would be very easy for a defender to make this play look "legitimate." Realistically, the only way this type of intentional foul is going to be called is if it's blatant.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

In the NBA as well, any foul before the ball is released on the throw-in is automatically two shots unless under two minutes in the 4th/overtime where it's an away from the play foul meaning any player on the court gets to shoot one free throw plus retain possession of the ball.

And Splute, the rule says specifically designed to keep the clock from starting. That doesn't mean any foul. We have to use our judgement. It would be very easy for a defender to make this play look "legitimate." Realistically, the only way this type of intentional foul is going to be called is if it's blatant.

When I first read the post I assumed the ball was still with the thrower; but with the ball in the air, I agree it is not necessarily a clear case for the INT.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Splute

When I first read the post I assumed the ball was still with the thrower; but with the ball in the air, I agree it is not necessarily a clear case for the INT.

Even if the ball is still in the thrower's hands, it doesn't mean it's still an automatic intentional foul. I could imagine scenarios where Team B would foul, but it would still be a legitimate play.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Even if the ball is still in the thrower's hands, it doesn't mean it's still an automatic intentional foul. I could imagine scenarios where Team B would foul, but it would still be a legitimate play.

I agree it is not an automatic intentional and I apologize for giving that impression. I was poorly trying to state what you all know, that the definition of an intentional foul covers the the deliberate attempt to prevent the clock from starting. If that situation occurs we have a means to prevent the defense from unfairly gaining an advantage by having an opportunity to regain the ball without any time having elapsed on the clock. But I would avoid the terms automatic, always and never; they tend to come back and haunt me.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

You're missing the picture.

The intent was to steal the ball, when B knowingly has a low success rate. The outcome is the clock not starting. As long as it's a legitimate attempt, imho, calling and INT is an incorrect call.

FIBA does have a rule to address this, but only in the last 2 minutes, and only while the ball is still in the thrower-in's hands. In FIBA, this is by rule their nearest equivalent of a cross between a T and an INT.

In Fed, we still use our judgment as to what type of foul to call.

Agreed, I do see your point if the ball is in the air when the hold occurs; that does complicate the call. And yes we still have to use our judgement in Fed, but I do not see that as a bad thing. We discuss these types of plays in our pre-game especially for high profile or playoff type games.