Intentional or Not

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by ontheway

I was taught by My HS V coach that when he says "dont let them score" that means if you have to torch his house, you stop the basket. In his own words " if your gonna foul MAKE SURE HE Misses HIS SHOT" I personally have done the exact play in question. My point is this; you guys are all X'ing him for mugging( which ive done) but you make it sound like him " dragging him down" was an act of malice or that he was violent. watch the video he helps him up and smacks his rear. Theres no "Chesting up" and NOt even an inkling of a potential fight. him holding onto the guy was prolly an act of kindness

This is an accepted practice in professional basketball, but not in amateur athletics.

The simple phrase "neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position" was created for this exact type of non-play on the ball. This phrase was included because the rules-makers do not want this type of defence in basketball. Period. If you don't like it, get yourself onto the rules committee and petition for a change. Until, you'll have to set your personal opinion aside (most of us have some rule that we don't like) and call the play correctly with an X.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This is an accepted practice in professional basketball, but not in amateur athletics.

The simple phrase "neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position" was created for this exact type of non-play on the ball. This phrase was included because the rules-makers do not want this type of defence in basketball. Period. If you don't like it, get yourself onto the rules committee and petition for a change. Until, you'll have to set your personal opinion aside (most of us have some rule that we don't like) and call the play correctly with an X.

I agree, but I read his post as a rejection of the idea that this might be a flagrant foul. My impression is that most players know that grabbing the opponent and "not playing the ball" is an intentional foul, even if they don't know the exact rules language.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree, but I read his post as a rejection of the idea that this might be a flagrant foul. My impression is that most players know that grabbing the opponent and "not playing the ball" is an intentional foul, even if they don't know the exact rules language.

I guess. But the only post that I saw mentioned a flagrant is an F-1 in a non-existant game. So why the need to convince us that it's not a flagrant? We already all pretty much agree that it isn't a flagrant foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This is an accepted practice in professional basketball, but not in amateur athletics.

The simple phrase "neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position" was created for this exact type of non-play on the ball. This phrase was included because the rules-makers do not want this type of defence in basketball. Period. If you don't like it, get yourself onto the rules committee and petition for a change. Until, you'll have to set your personal opinion aside (most of us have some rule that we don't like) and call the play correctly with an X.

Says who? You cannot take a line in the rule and say that it applies to your personal position either. I have never read anywhere that suggests you cannot foul someone and prevent a score. If that is the case any foul going to the basket would be considered an intentional foul and those are still rare situations.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Says who? You cannot take a line in the rule and say that it applies to your personal position either. I have never read anywhere that suggests you cannot foul someone and prevent a score. If that is the case any foul going to the basket would be considered an intentional foul and those are still rare situations.

Peace

Good grief.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Good grief.

Exactly. You could not answer the question but giving a personal opinion about what is accepted. Guess you have never seen a player do everything to block or stop a breakaway without violating the rules. Oh well.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Exactly. You could not answer the question but giving a personal opinion about what is accepted. Guess you have never seen a player do everything to block or stop a breakaway without violating the rules. Oh well.

Peace

Yeah, that's it exactly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Yeah, that's it exactly.

Well you said it was not acceptable and I really would like to know where any rule or interpretations says this is only acceptable at the pro level?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well you said it was not acceptable and I really would like to know where any rule or interpretations says this is only acceptable at the pro level?

Peace

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?

[APG]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This is an accepted practice in professional basketball, but not in amateur athletics.

The simple phrase "neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position" was created for this exact type of non-play on the ball. This phrase was included because the rules-makers do not want this type of defence in basketball. Period. If you don't like it, get yourself onto the rules committee and petition for a change. Until, you'll have to set your personal opinion aside (most of us have some rule that we don't like) and call the play correctly with an X.

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?

[Camron Rust]

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?

The difference is how they foul. Swatting at the ball from behind and missing the ball but getting the arms alone will not be intentional. Holding onto the opponent from behind such that they can't even jump and/or attempt the obvious shot no matter what is where it ventures into intentional territory.

This play ceased to be a play on the ball when the defender missed the ball then chose to hold onto the shooter's body so the shooter couldn't shoot.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The difference is how they foul. Swatting at the ball from behind and missing the ball but getting the arms alone will not be intentional. Holding onto the opponent from behind such that they can't even jump and/or attempt the obvious shot no matter what is where it ventures into intentional territory.

This play ceased to be a play on the ball when the defender missed the ball then chose to hold onto the shooter's body so the shooter couldn't shoot.

To your first point, that's what I mean in there being a right way to foul on purpose...and it is pretty much accepted to take away an offensive player's advantage.

[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.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

This is an accepted practice in professional basketball, but not in amateur athletics.

The simple phrase "neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position" was created for this exact type of non-play on the ball. This phrase was included because the rules-makers do not want this type of defence in basketball. Period. If you don't like it, get yourself onto the rules committee and petition for a change. Until, you'll have to set your personal opinion aside (most of us have some rule that we don't like) and call the play correctly with an X.

This is a great post and an absolutely HORRIBLE rule. By that wording yeah I guess that would be ruled an intentional foul, but all player's understand taking a foul to keep the guy from scoring, which is all this player did. That's why I believe the NCAA has instituted the Flagrant fouls system, so that these plays are acceptable. That play in no way should be ruled a FF.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

That's why I believe the NCAA has instituted the Flagrant fouls system, so that these plays are acceptable.

Disagree. The wording of the rules hasn't changed, so the play would be called the same way.