Intentional Fouls
 

I know we debated whether intent was a part of an intentional foul call in another string.

The argument against intent being part of an intentional foul is we can't judge someone's "intent" and we must base our decision on the action.

I have given this a couple of weeks of thought and feel there might be more to discuss on this issue.

The definition of intentional foul does include a sentence that states: Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act.

So if an intentional foul may be premeditated that would tell me that we can judge intent. Otherwise, the rulebook would have left this part of the definition out. To premeditate something is to think about that action prior to doing it.

So while I would certainly never explain to a coach: That kid was thinking I'm going to prevent a dunk and just grab this guy and that is why we called an intentional, coach.

I also want to make the point that intentional includes the word intent. It's similar, in my opinion, to traveling. Although the word travel is not in the definition, it is the word that we are defining. So if someone said traveling is a violation that occurs when someone is not dribble and has traveled beyond the legal limits. Certainly we wouldn't say, travel is never used in the definition of traveling, therefore that definition is not accurate.

I may have misinterpreted what people were saying, so I thought I would start a new string. I am anxious to hear people's thoughts.

To properly apply the intent & purpose of the rules, we must use the definition of the entire rule as written, as opposed to using individual sentences of the rule to adjudicate.

Last season it was worded this way:

ART. 3

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

The first sentence tells us what type of foul an INT can be & also defines what an INT is. The second sentence further defines intentional acts. The third sentence just clarifies that intent has nothing to do with the ruling.

May OR may not...
It is not part of our jobs to make decisions based on our thoughts of what they were or weren't thinking at the time of the foul.

B1 chases A1 on a fastbreak & purposely shoves him in the back OR cannot stop in time & accidently bumps the airborne shooter in the back. In both situations the airborne shooter flys into the wall & hits the ground real hard as a result of the contact while he was in an advantageous position.

In one he tried to shove the shooter, in the other he didn't, the result in both are the same (the first sitch could be upgraded).
May OR may not...
Meaning a persons intent has nothing to do with the decision of assessing an INT.

IDK if the change is similar to the NCAAs rational this year, but the rule is written this way for the upcoming HS season:

ART. 3

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:

a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.

c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.

d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

The highlighted red part....is nothing but intentional, deliberate if it was "designed". People like to dance around the word intent, but that IS what it is. You have to decide if it was designed to stop the clock or just happened to stop the clock. You have to consider intent.

Many people misconstrue this. This statement really just opens up the possibility of an intentional foul even if it is not premeditated. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't consider intent at all.

The running into the back option is an INT, not because it neutralized the position but because of the last sentence of the rule....in green. Which allows us to make an intentional foul even when they were just trying to make a normal play but missed and caused excessive force.

Intent IS part of the rule but it was extended to cover fouls outside of those that had intent. There have been proposals in the past to split intentionals into two rules to clarify the meaning...those with intent and those with excessive force but it has remained as it is.

I hear you, I guess what I'm saying is whether a player intended to foul someone or not isnt what we judge on. I think its more of the act itself & the result.

Team A has the ball OOB for a throw-in, before the pass is released B1 stumbles & knocks down A1. The official blows the whistle, what type of foul is this?

No...we actually do have to make that decision. A lot of people may say otherwise, but there is no way to apply the rule if you don't.

You can't decide if the play was designed to stop the clock if you don't consider intent.
I'm not calling it intentional...because it wasn't.

If this is in the closing seconds of a close game with B behind by 1 and you don't call this as intentional, you've just considered intent even if you don't use the word intent.

Okay, okay... I still get you Camron.

I'm sure you've Xd a player many times just to hear the offenders coach/fans say, "but he didn't try to do it!"
And I get where they are coming from, how can it be an intentional when he didnt intend to do anything.

NCAA-M is going to flagrant 1 & 2 for this reason.

So yeah, intent does have something to do with it! Intent just isnt the only factor we go on. A player can indeed be charged with an INT for things they accidently do that happens to result in severe contact.
May or may not...

How about that :)

I really don't understand why people have this misconception that we can't tell others' intentions in acting. We do this all the time, every day. Most commonly, we determine what others intend with their words, gestures, facial expressions, and body language. We decide whether someone intends a post or remark as ironic (smilies help). We figure out when someone is a threat, or a pest, or interested in us. The only people who struggle to figure out others' intentions are the autistic: this is in fact the hallmark of autism.

Reading intentions on the basketball court is all in a day's work.

I had an intentional foul in a girls summer league game, probably 6th or 7th grade, where I told the coach that her player, A5 had thrown and connected with an elbow (I was actually really close to upgrading this to a flagrant). I thought it was pretty clear cut as a minimum intentional. The coach argued that she teaches that. So I quickly explained that her elbows cannot move faster than her upper body and that if she is teaching that it is bad coaching.

In retrospect, I would never have answered the coach the same way at a higher level. And I'm pretty much regretting saying anything beyond what call I had, I'm thinking a dialogue wasn't needed.

Anyone have any great talking points they have used for an intentional foul?

I make it a point not to critique how or what a coach coaches...it's only fair if you don't want a coach trying to tell you how to officiate a game. I would have just told the coach that their player was excessively swinging the elbows and caused excessive contact.

If we call an intentional foul based on intent and intent alone, then we would call every foul at the end of the game an intentional foul when a team is fouling strategically. This one of the reasons the NCAA got away from that language and called a foul a "Flagrant 1" instead. You can still be called for an intentional foul and not intentionally foul an opponent.

Peace

Middle School or AAU, I might respond with, "you might want to reconsider that." More likely I just walk away. High School, just walk away.

Thanks for the comments.

I'm not very good at speaking to coaches yet, so I think while I learn to get better, I will just keep quiet and say very little.

I will keep my talking to spring and summer leagues :cool:

Traveling is a violation that occurs whenthe player with the ball MOVES HIS FEET beyond the legal limits.

Your definition would be similiar to saying the definition of washing is to wash clothes. That's not how definitions are written. You don't include the word or a form of the word in the definition of the word.

Intent has nothing to do with an intentional foul. Perhaps the NFHS needs to change the call to a Flagrant 1 or something.

Intent sure does. "designed to...." That word is a synonym for intent. Intent alone doesn't make it intentional, but the combination of intent and effect. It has to both have intent and have effect. If it is lacking either, it is probably not intentional.

Okay, I could have made my point better.

And that is that a player can intend to foul and not commit an intentional foul AND a player can commit an intentional foul without having intent.