Int

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes but an "obvious advantage" does not automatically mean "a clear path to the basket." That is an NBA classification for a certain kind of foul, not anything the NCAA uses (or NF) to determine an intentional foul. And no a player from behind does not get more scrutiny just because they fouled from behind, at least not with me. And I am not just commenting on the play in question, but the premise this has to be an "obvious advantage" as you state for this kind of play. Again I see a lot of fouls from behind that never get called intentional by me or any official for that matter or anything the NF or NCAA have said are intentional fouls. Just because you say it is a clear advantage does not mean the rules or interpretation supports your position just because the player is from behind. That is why I disagree, not because it rose to the level of an intentional foul or not.

Peace

Where did I say it "has" to be anything? You're right, there are a lot of fouls from behind that don't get called int, especially on layups, because the player is going for the block. But grabbing a shooter on the waist as has been described here?

For crying out loud, Rut, I didn't say it "has" to be an int just because he was fouled from behind; I simply disagreed with your assessment that it's not relevant. Because you were wrong.

I'm fully aware of what "clear path" means in the NBA, and so is tref; but I can also tell what he meant by what he wrote. That was clearer than the path itself.