Int
 

A1 has a clear path to the basket, B1 chases him down & grabs A1 just as he goes airborne.
Are we thinking INT?
Should time & score matter?

Wishy, Washy Enough?
 

In a HTBT moment, if I believe B1 is not making a play on the ball and this is NOT a basketball play, I might call it.

There's probably a lot more INT fouls committed than are actually called......especially at the end of games.

I did not think that play in the Arizona v. UConn play was an intentional foul which I think was the play that prompted this question.

Not based on the criteria you just stated. What kind of path they have to the basket is not relevant to calling an intentional foul.

Peace

I disagree. "Which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage." I'm not commenting on the play itself, but the kind of path they have to the basket is absolutely relevant to calling an intentional foul.

My point is that there is nothing in the rule that says we call a clear path to the basket any different than if they are under the basket. If a defender has no intention on defending the ball or causes excessive contract I agree. But not just fouling someone that has a clear lane is not the criteria in the rule. I also would not say this is an "obvious advantage" when there is a foul. And if that is the case any player that tries to block a shot and fouls a player should be an intentional foul (and does not fit any of the criteria of the rule).

And in the situation which I think this question was asked (Arizona-UConn game early in that game) that was not an intentional foul and the ball handler had a clear lane to the basket.

Peace

I didn't really see a "play for the ball" on that play...
I was thinking about the how the same play would be called, late in the game or after a hard foul. That's all.

Like I said, I wasn't commenting on the play since I haven't seen it. My point is simple, that in spite of the fact that there are other criteria to consider, a player fouling a shooter from behind gets more scrutiny. And yes, "obvious advantage" is directly from the rule, so I'm not sure how you can disagree with it.

Frankly, as described by tref, I'd call the intentional (grabbing a shooter from behind), but again, I haven't seen the play.

And this is just a ridiculous non sequitur.

+1

I thought that it should have been.

I'll get a clip of it later and post it in the discussion thread.

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

Just for clarification, the NBA has a classification of fouls called a "clear path to the basket" foul. The play must originate in the backcourt, there must be team possession by the new offense, the foul and the ball must occur between the tip of the circle extended in the backcourt and the basket in the frontcourt, and when the player is fouled, there must be no player between him and the basket. A foul in the act of shooting with all of these criteria met would not be deemed a clear path foul rather a shooting foul. Penalty is two shots and the ball.

+1

Son Of A Pitch ...
 

Offsides is a very confusing rule for some fans. Wait a minute. I'm being told by the control room that this is a basketball forum. Never mind.

I thought it was textbook. B1 grabbed the airborne shooter around the waist from behind! I was really surprised that wasn't INT.

And here it is 1/2 day later and still no clip. I'm disappointed. :p

Shut up! :D

Just channeling my inner JR!

Yeah that's what I was saying. I'm aware that the "clear path" rule is an NBA thing, but that fact along with wrapping up an airborne shooter minus a legitimate play on the ball, sold me. There was a double whistle on the play as well.

But hey, its much easier to make calls from the stands/couch than in real game situations...

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.

For your edification....

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post744252

Not to get in between friends :D but I think JRut's point might be that a clear path doesn't have any bearing on our judgement. For instance:

A1 has a fast break, around 25' from the basket B1 grabs A1 around the waist from behind. In deciding whether or not to assess an IF on B1 does it matter whether or not Team B had another defender in between A1 and the basket? Or say B1 makes a half play on the ball and fouls A1. If there is no other defender between A1 and basket are we now going to call a IF because of the clear path?

Probably not on that play, but Rut said it's "irrelevant," and that's just not correct. It may not be relevant on a particular play, but it's certainly a criteria based on the "obvious advantage" portion of the rule.

I'm done with it, though.

You are exactly right based on my position.

It is irrelevant to what the rule says. There is nothing in the NCAA rule that gives us any more likely judgment to call an intentional foul because of the presence or absence of a "clear path." Or I cannot even remember a single interpretation that says we should call anything differently based on who is in front of the ball handler to the basket. That is why I made that statement in the first place, you do not have agree with me at all. If you do not agree that is OK, but that alone does not create an obvious advantage in my opinion as you seem to want to suggest no matter how many times you say it. You should call an intentional foul based on the actions of the fouler, not if a ball handler has a certain path or absent of a certain path. Could such a foul where there is a clear path be called an intentional foul? Of course it could, but not because of the way you are suggesting. Stop being such a sensitive baby, we just do not agree on what an obvious advantage is based on that criteria. It is a basic disagreement and no rules language supports your position as you are suggesting. That is all I am saying.

Peace

JRut, although the rulebooks at various levels are written different, many rules have the same meaning. I think the leagues rules are written best, terms like gather & clear path are clear cut & takes the judgment out of the equation.

Of course we can't apply NBA rules to an NCAA or HS contest, but doesn't clear path mean someone has an advantageous position at any level of play?

The defender chasing down the AZ player raised my antennas... when they get beat, they cheat. But grabbing an airborne player at the rack was the selling point for me!

That is great, but that is not something the NCAA has taken on as a standard. And the NCAA does a great job giving video on all these kinds of plays that we discuss here to show what is expected. Never heard anyone consider a "clear path" as a guideline.

No. And the NCAA or the NF does not use that as criteria in their literature. If they did maybe we could agree, but you are using a personal standard to help you make a judgment. An intentional foul should be called if there are no one in front of the basket or 5 people in front of the basket if the actions are what cause the advantage. It should not judge on something that is not present in the rules or interpretation IMO for this type of foul.

If that is the case any foul on the ball handler or shooter is an intentional foul and there is no such rule that supports that logic or interpretation.

Peace

You're hearing what you want hear JRut. I said the clear path AZ had raised my antennas for a potential foul. I based my thoughts about the no call on the defenders action.

This is why we get paid the big bucks.
 

No, you keep interjecting a phrase that is not in the rule or used at that level and has origins only at the NBA level. Again, you feel that this a criteria I am OK with that for you to feel there is an advantage. You do not see me trying to tell you that you are wrong. I am just saying that we should call an intentional foul based on the actions of the foul, not other circumstances that are not stated in the rules or interpretations. And there are no “clear path” criteria in the rule anywhere but the NBA and even in the NBA that criteria is very narrow as stated by another poster.

Peace

This is very similar to the FIBA ruling for a player on a break away.