Intentional or not?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Fellas, I was just pointing out the differences in wording...

HS says excessive.
NCAA says excessive &/or unneccesary.

Whether they nudge or shove, its still a form of pushing. Airborne shooters dont get shoved or nudged from behind in my games. Just like an elbow hit or elbow tap... its still a foul.

Thats all

I guess you call ALL contact as an intentional foul because all of it is unnecessary.

[tref]

If I did that, I'm sure I'd be back to working a plethora of kiddie games on Saturday mornings instead of Saturday night 7pm

IMO the defender running down an airborne shooter who's laying the ball up doesn't get to play last tag just because he got beat. Sometimes you just gotta let it go...

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

[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!"

[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