Intentional or Not

[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 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