Int

tref · #1 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 06:36pm

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?

grunewar · #2 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 06:57pm

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.

APG · #3 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 07:08pm

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.

JRutledge · #4 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 07:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tref

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?

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

Adam · #5 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 08:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

JRutledge · #6 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 08:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

tref · #7 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 08:59pm

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.

Adam · #8 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 09:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

Welpe · #9 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 10:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaqwells

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.

+1

Nevadaref · #10 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 10:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

I thought that it should have been.

APG · #11 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 10:40pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I thought that it should have been.

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

JRutledge · #12 (**permalink**) Sat Mar 26, 2011, 11:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

APG · #13 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 27, 2011, 12:03am

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.