Intentional or not?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by tref

We didnt see this play, would you agree that nudging an airborne shooter may not be excessive but it is unneccesary??

BTW:

Verb 1. nudge - to push against gently; "She nudged my elbow when she saw her friend enter the restaurant"
poke at, prod
jog - give a slight push to
elbow - shove one's elbow into another person's ribs
push, force - move with force, "He pushed the table into a corner"
2. nudge - push into action by pestering or annoying gently
push, bear on - press, drive, or impel (someone) to action or completion of an action; "He pushed her to finish her doctorate"

The word "push" is in there quite often

This is all wonderful, but we have words in the rulebook and the word "nudge" is not used. So if there is illegal contact, then it should be called. But all contact is not a foul and can be severe. That last wording is actually used in the rulebook. And since this is really a HTBT situation, this would be based on the judgment if contact was significant to displace the player from normal movement as a shooter.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by tref

BTW I've never had to call more than one INT for this in a single game, if you know what I mean.

You mean: After the first one the players yell, "Don't even touch him!" "Don't breathe on him!" and roll their eyes a lot.

[Art N]

I agree that this is a classic, HTBT.

In light of what has been presented in the OP and others, I would agree that the common foul may be appropriate for this situation then the intentional foul.

However, I just want to make sure we don't get caught up on the issue of how much contact is needed to call a foul, that we disregard some "light" contact that could gain an advantage. We may have harder contact on pick and let it go, and light touch to the shooter's arm we call.

For example, if you have an airborne shooter taking an outside shot and the defender gives him/her a "light" jab/poke to the belly on the way up before the shot, ask yourself if you are going to call that a foul? Or ignore it because it was light.

Conversely, we could have a train wreck with two players running for a loose ball in the air, and they collide because they were looking up and we have nothing. I know, you HTBT and not quite the same, but I only wanted to make a point about the amount of contact and type of contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Art N

For example, if you have an airborne shooter taking an outside shot and the defender gives him/her a "light" jab/poke to the belly on the way up before the shot, ask yourself if you are going to call that a foul? Or ignore it because it was light.

I'm calling that an intentional foul, to be honest.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm calling that an intentional foul, to be honest.

Shooting foul

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Shooting foul

"And two!"

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

A1 has fast break for a layup. B1catches up just enough to put a hand in his back in the middle of the shot. He was obviously beat and contact was unecessary. A1 made the basket and wasn't knocked to the floor. Thoughts? No call, intentional, pushing foul for a +1?

FIBA Ruling:

Clear path. UNS foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Art N

I agree that this is a classic, HTBT.

In light of what has been presented in the OP and others, I would agree that the common foul may be appropriate for this situation then the intentional foul.

However, I just want to make sure we don't get caught up on the issue of how much contact is needed to call a foul, that we disregard some "light" contact that could gain an advantage. We may have harder contact on pick and let it go, and light touch to the shooter's arm we call.

Those are bad analogies as contact on a screen is not only expected, it is legal if everyone has done their job. I do not put contact on a screen as the same as contact on a shooter either. And contact on a shooter can be legal as well. It is not about the severity of the contact, is is whether the contact is illegal and affects "normal offensive and defensive movement." If the contact does not do that, then it is not a foul even if it is severe.

Do not cloud the issue with the severity of contact when we know incidental contact does not consider the level as a reason to call or not call a foul.

Peace