Intentional or Not

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Do you think there aren't times at the amateur level, where players take a foul to stop an easy basket? There's a right and wrong way to go about it to not make it plain as day that one is trying to foul on purpose to stop a basket. Just because, say for instance, a player fouls a player from behind on a fastbreak where the offensive player is ahead of everyone, doesn't mean it's an automatic intentional foul.

I think that's kind of the point ontheway was trying to get along?

Could be. otw was the first to mention "malice" and "violent" from the "dragging him down". Additionally, nobody mentioned the upgrade to a FF. I think otw was mis-interpreting what was said prior to his post, that's all.

My response to him was, I admit, too strong, but that's because I felt it unnecessary to defend a position that nobody had suggested yet.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Don't know what the pro rule is, but obviously (Hack-a-Shaq, etc.) in the NBA the practice is acceptable. As far as NFHS, if the phrase quoted above,

"foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position."

does not apply to the play in question, what does it mean?

In some instances, the NBA is more strict on fouls that take a player's advantage away...a clear-path-foul (two shots+ball) has a lot less judgement involved than an intentional foul in fastbreak situations. Also, if a player is fouled before the throw-in is released, it's two shots automatically unless the game is under two minutes left. In that case, any type of foul that is away from the play or before the ball is released on a throw-in is an away-from-the-play foul...one shot by anyone on the floor at the time and possession.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Don't know what the pro rule is, but obviously (Hack-a-Shaq, etc.) in the NBA the practice is acceptable. As far as NFHS, if the phrase quoted above,

"foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position."

does not apply to the play in question, what does it mean?

This is why the better you understand the game, the better you will understand the rules or the application of those rules.

The philosophy to "not allows someone to shoot" not only is not illegal under NF or NCAA rules or interpretation, if every time someone feel and advantage of some kind is taken away or all hard fouls would be considered intentional. It is one thing to take a line out of the rulebook, it is quite another to find an interpretation that says all contact like these are automatically IFs. I guess if someone tries to dunk and the defender stops the dunk than that is a clear advantage no matter where the contact takes place or what other legal actions the defender did as well. Which is why the only way this play would be an IF to me is if the player used his left arm to grab the player. But if the attempt was simply a swipe at the ball, I have nothing more than a normal foul.

Peace

[ontheway]

ALL purpose gamer thank you. That is what i was trying to get along. also the fact that the offender held on to the shooter, i Believe ( atleast when i did it) that holding onto the offended was like saying "hey man im not trying to hurt you so be cool i could have let your head smash the floor" So why are we penalizing the offender for doing what hes told and being nice about it? is it because it honestly could go either way?

[APG]

Originally Posted by ontheway

ALL purpose gamer thank you. That is what i was trying to get along. also the fact that the offender held on to the shooter, i Believe ( atleast when i did it) that holding onto the offended was like saying "hey man im not trying to hurt you so be cool i could have let your head smash the floor" So why are we penalizing the offender for doing what hes told and being nice about it? is it because it honestly could go either way?

We can't take into consideration what a player has been instructed to do by their coach...think of end of game fouling situations. Players are instructed to foul the opponent on purpose, but that doesn't mean a defender can just grab two handfuls of jersey.

I think most people are saying intentional foul because 1.) they don't believe the defender was making a legit play on the ball and 2.) that in their opinion, the foul was for the sole purpose of taking away the player's obvious advantage.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ontheway

ALL purpose gamer thank you. That is what i was trying to get along. also the fact that the offender held on to the shooter, i Believe ( atleast when i did it) that holding onto the offended was like saying "hey man im not trying to hurt you so be cool i could have let your head smash the floor" So why are we penalizing the offender for doing what hes told and being nice about it? is it because it honestly could go either way?

That is why I am not sold on the IF based on what I saw in this video and from that angle. It was hard to tell if the arm came around to grab the shooter on the play IMO. And it does look like the grab after the play was to not hurt the guy.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

That is why I am not sold on the IF based on what I saw in this video and from that angle. It was hard to tell if the arm came around to grab the shooter on the play IMO. And it does look like the grab after the play was to not hurt the guy.

Peace

I think it ended up that way once it was clear he prevented the shot but I think the middle of the play was where it became intentional.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it ended up that way once it was clear he prevented the shot but I think the middle of the play was where it became intentional.

I do not totally disagree with that. I just would like to see a better view or another angle of this play to be sold on an IF call. This is why I say I can live with either an IF or a regular everyday foul with this play.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is why the better you understand the game, the better you will understand the rules or the application of those rules.

The philosophy to "not allows someone to shoot" not only is not illegal under NF or NCAA rules or interpretation, if every time someone feel and advantage of some kind is taken away or all hard fouls would be considered intentional. It is one thing to take a line out of the rulebook, it is quite another to find an interpretation that says all contact like these are automatically IFs. I guess if someone tries to dunk and the defender stops the dunk than that is a clear advantage no matter where the contact takes place or what other legal actions the defender did as well. Which is why the only way this play would be an IF to me is if the player used his left arm to grab the player. But if the attempt was simply a swipe at the ball, I have nothing more than a normal foul.

Peace

Didn't say all contact. Didn't say automatic.

The defender in the OP did use his left arm to grab the player.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The defender in the OP did use his left arm to grab the player.

He did, but when did he do it matters to me. If all he was doing was to keep him from falling hard, I am not calling an IF.

If he did it to prevent a move to the basket, then that is a different story.

Peace

[Toren]

I'm relatively new to the refereeing field. The biggest thing that stand out to me: the lead official got beat on this play, and the reason being he slows up at the end, he could have easily have been three or four steps in better position than he was. He may not have been in perfect position to receive the play, but he definitely could have been in better position. This is the type of play you bust your butt hard the whole way, but he didn't, he slowed down.

Secondly, the opposite side official, I'm going to assume this is three man and call him the slot, doesn't enter the shot until the foul is called and the lead is now separating personnel. I'm not sure what kind of angle or assistance he could have possibly given.

I didn't like those two things about the coverage. With that said, intentional all the way. The defender had no intent other than there was not going to be a dunk on his team.

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by Toren

I'm relatively new to the refereeing field. The biggest thing that stand out to me: the lead official got beat on this play, and the reason being he slows up at the end, he could have easily have been three or four steps in better position than he was. He may not have been in perfect position to receive the play, but he definitely could have been in better position. This is the type of play you bust your butt hard the whole way, but he didn't, he slowed down.

Secondly, the opposite side official, I'm going to assume this is three man and call him the slot, doesn't enter the shot until the foul is called and the lead is now separating personnel. I'm not sure what kind of angle or assistance he could have possibly given.

I didn't like those two things about the coverage. With that said, intentional all the way. The defender had no intent other than there was not going to be a dunk on his team.

There's a time when you're going to get beat, no matter how much busting you do. So if he slowed down to maintain a look through versus over running the play, he may have seen all that was necessary. Except for possibly that left hand grabbing jersey, which has been previously mentioned.

I agree with your assessment of the center official. Too far away IMO to offer credible assistance on the IF upgrade, but I would listen.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Toren

I'm relatively new to the refereeing field. The biggest thing that stand out to me: the lead official got beat on this play, and the reason being he slows up at the end, he could have easily have been three or four steps in better position than he was. He may not have been in perfect position to receive the play, but he definitely could have been in better position. This is the type of play you bust your butt hard the whole way, but he didn't, he slowed down.

He did not get beat or even beat badly. This was a full court pass where the Lead would likely get dusted and he was with the play. Actually I would have liked him to stop and look at the play from around the block. Busting down would not have given him a better angle as the Center would have been able to see the side of the play where the initial contact took place. If anything the Center got beat on this play.

Originally Posted by Toren

Secondly, the opposite side official, I'm going to assume this is three man and call him the slot, doesn't enter the shot until the foul is called and the lead is now separating personnel. I'm not sure what kind of angle or assistance he could have possibly given.

A double whistle here would have been better, but it appears the Center simply did not recognize the play in time or did not hustle to stay in position.

Originally Posted by Toren

I didn't like those two things about the coverage. With that said, intentional all the way. The defender had no intent other than there was not going to be a dunk on his team.

His intent is not the issue; it is what he did to prevent that action. Like I said before I would like a closer angle to determine what the defender did with his arm as we cannot see how much of the ball or arm the defender made contact with.

Peace

[Toren]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He did not get beat or even beat badly. This was a full court pass where the Lead would likely get dusted and he was with the play. Actually I would have liked him to stop and look at the play from around the block. Busting down would not have given him a better angle as the Center would have been able to see the side of the play where the initial contact took place. If anything the Center got beat on this play.

I agree it's a tough situation for the lead to not get beat on this play. But he did. Certainly not badly beat though. He gave one or two hard fast steps along the side initially but then slows down. Had he run that same way the whole time, he might have been able to "stop and receive" the play. I don't mind his angle here, wide is good here. I also think wide along the endline is best. But he never makes the endline.

But the more I look at the play, the Center definitely gets beat and even when there appears to be some escalation, he is walking toward the action. The lead in comparison did a fantastic job.

A double whistle here would have been better, but it appears the Center simply did not recognize the play in time or did not hustle to stay in position.

100%

His intent is not the issue; it is what he did to prevent that action. Like I said before I would like a closer angle to determine what the defender did with his arm as we cannot see how much of the ball or arm the defender made contact with.

Can you explain why you don't think intent is a part of an intentional foul situation?

Peace

Thanks for the feedback.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Toren

Can you explain why you don't think intent is a part of an intentional foul situation?

No where in the rule does the word "intent" come into play for why we do or why we do not call an intentional foul. We should only call a foul based on the action or in some cases the result. For example if excessive contact took place we can decide that was an intentional foul no matter if the player intended to foul the player or not.

Peace