Intentional or Not

[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

[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.

[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