Int

[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?

[grunewar]

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]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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]

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by nevadaref

i thought that it should have been.

+1

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I thought that it should have been.

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

[tref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

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...

[JRutledge]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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