Intentional or Not
 

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Pdb3vFSfKvU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You throwing up the X or not?

I'm OK with the intentional.

If he had made the same swipe and not held on to drag him down, probably not.

This is a tough angle. That is probably why the C offered his judgement as he closed down since the L had a common foul. The angle from C could have been better since contact was on that side.

Intentional Foul ...
 

Agree. From my side of the court, it looked like the defender "hooked" the ball handler across the upper arm, and dragged him down.

AllPurposeGamer: Can you get us the video from the hot single Mom with the camera on the other side of the court?

I could be OK with either call. Without seeing a better angle I cannot say the IF was bad and I can see why nothing more was called but a common foul.

Peace

Slo mo is going to ruin my career. Full speed I have no intentional. It looks like he made a play at the ball and attempted to hold up the player. Then slo-mo it looks worse and I change my mind. I wonder what other decisions in my life I would reconsider if I slowed down the tape? Where's that wedding footage.....?

Slow motion tends to have that effect...making incidents appear worse than they really were.

Use it for what it is worth. Players will make contact in this game and sometimes will look like this. I would just need to see clearer what the other arm was doing and I would feel more confident calling an IF.

Peace

I see this as a play which matches the first line of the definition of an IF.

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

The swipe at the ball was an afterthought after the mugging.


As I describe this kind of play to myself: He had no chance to do anything but foul................and he knew it.

Agreed. There's no attempt to play the ball here. He comes across the upper right arm and pulls him down with his right hand.

And I'd bet the C is telling him he had a left hand full of jersey as well.

Looks like both hands to me. I say make the X. The defender was playing the body completely.

My thoughts exactly... boy, are the commentators some homers!

X all the way. No need to see it on replay or in slow motion.

Agree. In football we say that slo-mo makes everything look like a foul.

I also agree that this is an intentional foul. Easy call, even in real time.

If you let that go, then the next one will only be worse. The IF gets the players attention.

per the criteria the John Adams provided at the NCAA-M level....yep - intentional.

Flagrant 1 this season.

"OH MY, Thats a TERRIBLE CALL," by the announcers :p

I agree with those focusing on the "first line" of the IF rule. IF from me.

I refuse to answer the poll question because both given answers are correct.

Leave it up to Bob to come up with a play where you can actually "call it both ways". :D

From Lead, common foul.

From Center, intentional.

it's an intentional foul and it's a personal foul. it's not a common foul.

I think it was fairly apparent that the options were "intentional personal foul" and "common personal foul".

Most times when we say intentional foul, we're talking about a personal foul... and most times when we talk about personal fouls, we're talking about common fouls.

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.

True :)

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

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

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

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

Heaven Forbid That You Start Some Kind Of Trend ...
 

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

I Still Play
 

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Good grief.

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.

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. :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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks
 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks for the feedback.

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

In addition to what JRut said, it is not part of our jobs to make decisions as to what players are thinking or intending to do.
The part of the rule that says, intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated... tells us that intent has nothing to do with assessing intentional fouls.

Im sure you threw up the X in a game just to hear the player/coach say, "he didn't try to knock him down."

NCAA-M is eliminating the intentional foul & going to flagrant 1 & 2 this season for this very reason:

Eliminate the use of an intentional foul and replace it with “Flagrant 1”. Flagrant 1 will carry a penalty of two shots and the ball; Flagrant 2 will be two shots, the ball and ejection of the offender.

Rationale: To remove the concept of intent from these rules.

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.

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