Intentional or Not

Camron Rust

tref wrote
Unless the fouled player is trying or tapping for a goal.

I said "most" times...not all the time. 😉

And the point was that the poll, using "personal foul" and "intentional foul" was aquatically clear in the context of the video.

tref

True 🙂

The play we're currently discussing couldnt even be considered a common foul though.

JRutledge

Now that we have figured out the difference between an intentional foul and a common foul by definition, why is everyone calling this an IF? Are we calling it that way because of the result of the play or because the fouler grabbed with player with both arms? The reason I ask because I cannot tell the my last question the player did anything other than come from behind to make a play on the ball (that does not disqualify an IF BTW before someone gets into that discussion).

Peace

tref

JRutledge wrote
Now that we have figured out the difference between an intentional foul and a common foul by definition, why is everyone calling this an IF?

The first & last sentence of the rule, for me.

NCHSAA

I used common in the sense of non intentional/flagrant. My apologies!

BillyMac

NCHSAA wrote
I used common sense. My apologies!

You had better apologize. There is absolutely, positively, no place for common sense anywhere on the Forum.

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

JugglingReferee

ontheway wrote
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.

bob jenkins

ontheway wrote
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.

Those actions would (or could) be flagrant (or Flagrant 2 this year in NCAA). No one is suggesting that.

mbyron

JugglingReferee wrote
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.

JRutledge

JugglingReferee wrote
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

tref

ontheway wrote
...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

Most smart players think their actions after a "hard foul" may put doubt in the minds of the officials.
His actions removed all doubt whether or not an upgrade to flagrant applies, but it was still intentional.

JugglingReferee

JRutledge wrote
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.

JugglingReferee

mbyron wrote
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

JugglingReferee wrote
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

JRutledge wrote
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

JugglingReferee wrote
Yeah, that's it exactly. :rolleyes:

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

APG

JugglingReferee wrote
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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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.

just another ref

JRutledge wrote
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?

« Previous Page Next Page »