Intentional Foul
 

A1 is attempting a three-point shot and is fouled intentionally by B2. The shot is successful. What is the result?

My answer was count the basket and award 1 free throw plus Team A gets a throw in from endline.

Is that correct?

Nope. Rook, intentional fouls are always two shots unless on a missed 3-point attempt (3 shots) The ensuing TI is closest to the spot of the foul so most likely would not be on the endline.

Being fouled intentionally is not one of the criteria of an intentional foul (perhaps oddly).

Call an intentional foul when contact is either (a) severe but not flagrant, or (b) neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage.

To the OP: count the bucket, 1 FT for the foul, and go from there.

I believe that the OP is telling us that the call was indeed an intentional personal foul on the successful three-point try.

If that is the case, then the proper ruling is 3pts for the made goal, plus TWO free throws for the offended player, then the ball is awarded OOB to the scoring team nearest the spot of the foul.

I am assuming that an intentional foul was called. The fact that the Rookie said the ball was given to Team A for a throw in pretty much confirms that.

I had a 5-point play tonight.

A trey followed by a crash into the player that shot, after he was down, and in the automatic bonus.

Sure it is.
or
Rule 4-19-3c

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

which is a synonym for intent.
Count the bucket, 2 FTs for the intentional foul.

Camron,
I believe that mbyron is refering to strategic fouling by a team near the end of the game. These fouls are certainly done on purpose or intentionally, yet are not automatically intentional fouls.

The reasons you cite, that the foul is given purposely to stop the clock, keep it from starting, or to negate the obvious advantageous position of an opponent, have an element of intent to them, but there is more. The intent to commit the foul itself is not enough, the foul must also do something else in order to be deemed an intentional foul. You have pointed out in the rule what those something elses are.

Yet, if many of those something else's happen without intent, they remain a common foul. For example, stopping the clock....for it to be intentional, it has to be specifically designed to stop the clock, which is the same as deliberate, intentional. For that matter, all fouls stop the clock. The only thing that makes it an intentional is the fact that it was deliberately/intentionally committed so the clock would stop. What else is left to separate them? We dance around it a bit by saying that if they make a half-hearted attempt to make it look like a normal foul, we'll call it as such, but it is a bit of a farce because everyone knows they are breaking a rule in hopes that it will work in their favor...exactly what the intentional foul rule is designed, in part, to prevent.


Many fouls also negate an obvious advantageous position....that is basically what advantage/disadvantage is saying. Yet, it is intent (or excessive force) that makes them an intentional foul.

No, it isn't. 4-19-3: "Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated..."

Neither necessary nor sufficient. Not criterial. :p

And I know for a fact that you don't call an intentional foul when a player fouls to stop the clock at the end of a game.

I may not be understanding what mbyron is trying to get across here, but isnt part of the definition in the name INTENTIONAL foul? Also in the book definition "Intentional fouls MAY or may not be premeditated..." For me the inevitable multiple fouls that occur at the end of the game; If they are playing the ball I call common foul. If it is the grab the other player and stand up waiting for the call, which it usually is, intentional. In my opinion the fifteen thousand foul tactic at the end of games should get a delay warning then start whacking the coach. So now I will hide in the corner and await the onslaught :D

Live ball fouls (in the correct manner) during EOG situations is an acceptable practice & should be expected to extend the ballgame.

Are you suggesting a rule change, or are you saying as written the rules support whacking the coach? Sorry, but I can't support you either way.

No on the written rule support and God knows we dont need another rule change, just mostly voicing my dislike for the multiple fouls at the end of the game. :o

Sure we do if it fits the criteria outlined in 4-19-3c.

It's up to the coaches to teach their players the correct way to foul in end game situations if they don't want to run afoul ;) of the rule......