I have had two times this year both boys JV-when i felt i had to call an intentional foul near the end of the game--no(or minor) attempt to go for ball-clearly it was to stop the clock-Coach all over me--do you think calling intentional is correct or just let it go as a PF? One coach even asked how do i get someone to the line?
interested in hearing your thoughts--this does not seem to be a call that is made very often

There is no easy answer, it's one of those things that you have to figure out for yourself how YOU are going to call it. For me, if they make even a minor attempt to go for the ball, or even fake it and they aren't excessive then I will call it a personal foul. In this situation, you can help yourself alot by being aware of what they are trying to do. If they are trying to foul, call a foul, don't make them mug the kid to get you to blow your whistle.

From the NCAA rulebook...
 

Appendix III. Officiating guidelines
Section 6. Intentional Personal Fouling
Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:
a. Any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player is an intentional personal foul.
b. Running into the back of a player who has the ball, wrapping the arm(s) around a player and grabbing a player around the torso or legs are intentional personal fouls.
c. Grabbing a player?s arm or body while initially attempting to gain control by playing the ball directly is an intentional personal foul.
d. Grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an intentional personal foul.
e. Undue roughness to stop the game clock is an intentional personal foul and, if severe, should be called a flagrant personal foul (women: flagrant foul).
f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.
The intentional personal foul must be called within the spirit and intent
of the intentional-foul rule.

The "attempt to play the ball" thing will always be a judgement call, some calls easier than others.

Some examples that would be intentional IMO:

The leaping hug
The desparation shirt grab
The two-hander in the back
The Warren Sapp cross-body block

The best thing to do is, when you know one team has to foul, nail the first contact you see. If you wait for that major hack you are inviting trouble.

I worked girls & boys District Middle School tourney championship last Fri. night. During the closing minutes of the boys I was really impressed with the coach who was losing by 3 or 4. I could easily see the coach who was behind told his players to try to steal but if they couldn't steal the ball he then wanted a foul. The foul would create a 1+1. The coach called out to his player on the ball, "go ahead, go ahead, do it, do it." Ususally you will hear, "FOUL, FOUL, FOUL!!" The coach was actually aware of the intentional foul rule.

No I will not automatically give an intentional foul when a coach yells out for one of his/her players to foul. The unwritten rule in our assoc. has been; the contact should be of intentional nature not just hearing a command from the coach.

The boys game went to OT & the coach I'm referring to lost. But I was impressed.

I struggled with this same question earlier this year. I asked here, and got some great adivce. And I've had a few weeks to try it out. Here's what I do now:

1. If a team is in a situation where they are likely to want to foul, give them the foul on the first contact. Don't make them give you a "good foul," or they will.

2. Know how it's called in your area. Two shots and the ball is a lot to a team that's struggling to get a break at the end of the game. What they want from you is consistency (and in this case, consistency means what everybody else has called).

3. If you're going to call it, then give the fouler the benefit of the doubt. Unless he bear hugs the guy, two hand pushes, etc. (i.e., obvious attempts NOT to play the ball), call it a PF.

Just my 2 cents, but it's working well for me.

I like Back-in-the-Saddle's #1 answer. I have found over the years, that the second attempt to stop the clock with a foul will generally be an intentional foul. We work on identifing the situation early, and catching the FIRST foul. That one can most often be called a PF.

Blackhawk

thanks for your help all--good advise

Isn't this an area where the rules and the general practice are at odds? If the player's intent is to foul to stop the clock, it clearly satisfies the English meaning of intentional, regardless of their physical behavior. Conversely, we all expect it to happen in close games, and nobody expects an intentional foul to be called if the player makes a half-hearted attempt to look like he or she is playing the ball. My question is, do we, the basketball community, think the ambiguity caused by the current rules help anything? I think it is important to keep muggings under control when the defense is trying to stop the clock, but isn't there a better way? Why should the officials have to make counter-intuitive calls? (By counter-intuitive I mean not calling an intentional foul when everybody knows it is on purpose.)

I can think of some lame rule changes that would address the issue, but they probably would make other things worse. Maybe a new class of personal foul to make it clearer that not all "on purpose" fouls are "intentional"?

Any ideas or comments?

Good one Back In The Saddle.
 

BITS makes an excellent point - even if it wasn't originally his. If you are not quick enough to call the initial attempt, the aggressiveness will escalate until you will have to call an intentional foul. Call one early.

And most important is that this initial attempt is likely a foul that you probably would have let go at any other time during the game. But recognise the game situation. Are they wanting to foul; does the game situation call for the team to foul? Then call one before you have to call an intentional... before they hurt each other.

Rarely have I been chastised for calling a little foul in a tight game ending situation with the fouling team behind.

CYO

Fouls are not necessarily accidental and intentional. The definition of an intentional foul is broad enough that many fouls during the game could be incorrectly construed to be called 'intentional.' I would not advocate calling all fouls that were not deemed to be accidental as an intentional.

An illegal screen... intentional? Very likely not.

I don't personally like the intentional foul definition (fouls are designed??). The definition is not organized well but I feel the greater priority for making an intentional foul call should be based upon "neutralizing an opponent's obvious advantageous position." And minimizing the importance of the clock situation. I know this flies in the face of the literal definition.

For myself, the clock situation makes it more important for a team to commit a foul and more important for me to call it. However, the clock situation does not greatly make it more important for me to call an INTENTIONAL foul. Personally, I am only slightly more inclined to call an intentional foul during the final seconds than I am to call one in the first minutes of the game.

These are just my opinions. Tony

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Feb 10th, 2003 at 04:05 PM]

Tony, I agree with everything you said. This is how we all learned the game and how we expect it to be played. I just really don't like the implications of using a perfectly good English word like "intentional" to mean something different. How many times have you heard a coach, fan, or player yell "Common ref, that was intentional" and you knew it was on purpose but did not fit the spirit of the rule? I know I've heard it about once every other game, although admittedly not too often in end of game situations like from this thread.

I don't have any reasonable alternative thought through, but as someone who is pretty anal about using words properly, this one just grates on me.