Intentional or not?
 

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?

Honestly have no idea based on the description. You need a little more than putting hands on someone to call a foul. The shooter being displaced would have more to do with what I would call.

Peace

Did he change A1's trajectory?

If a call is made there, the expected call will be an INT.

He gave him just a little nudge. Nothing excessive. Do you let players get away with such nonsense?

Again, this is not about letting anyone get away with anything. The contact has to affect the player. An attempt at something is not the same as a foul in this case. This is why I asked the question, because simply touching a player is not a foul. There has to be some displacement, movement, stopping or directing a player. Honestly I am sure I call more intentional fouls than anyone here and never care what others think about it when I do call them or the point of the game. But your description is not conclusive and your answer is even more inconclusive.

Peace

A little nudge in the back of an airborne shooter may not be excessive, but it damned sure is unneccesary. INT

That makes it sound, to me, as if you already have your mind made up.

Yep.

Peace

If the displacement is slight, I'll call the shooting foul and talk to the player.

If there's no displacement, no call.

If it's significant, an INT is likely the best option.

I know, I know, its two different codes!! But as I always say the higher the level of play, the better the books are written.

HS
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.


NCAA
A flagrant 1 personal foul shall be a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player,
specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly
involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock
from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. (Women) This act shall also
serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary. (See Rule
4-17-1.g.)
6. Illegal contact with an elbow that occurs above the shoulders of an
opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36-7.a.

Even in the NCAA they don't call what was described as an intentional. It will be a common foul or nothing. INTs are shoves from behind, not nudges. Note the word "to prevent a score". It's got to be hard enough to be capable of preventing the score.

Actually, this particular play likely falls under NFHS c (above), not d.

This is a better passage. The problem is that is hard to tell by the description of the OP though.

Peace

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 :)

No it is not. All contact is not considered a foul by rule. So a nudge would not be the same as pushing someone. Heck I expect a nudge on many plays if the contact is legal. And all elbow contact is not a foul and the NCAA has made that very clear many times in their video. So it matters how and what the contact affected the players. Language or not, the concept is not different.

Peace

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 :D

It may or may not be excessive. Even if it is unnecessary, it can still be incidental.

It is not as if I had my mind made up but it is what I called. Reading some of the answers I think I got a little clarification. In my mind at the time of the call, this was not a legitimate play on the ball or excessive contact, but reading C above in the HS rules it specifically talks about it being to stop the clock or prevent it from starting. Perhaps I was off base with this call. More displacement for sure would have earned the INT but I probably should have given an +1 only.

cringe

[QUOTE=tref;818249]We didnt see this play, would you agree that nudging an airborne shooter may not be excessive but it is unneccesary??

Yes

There it is. These are typically HTBT calls, but if you had to pin it down to words, I'd say this nails it.

you don't agree?

+1

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

Just with the term "and one." Nothing wrong with it per se, just coach speak that makes me tune out a coach faster than "3 seconds" or "over the back."

What would you like me to use?

And 1. :D

Honestly, I would just use "shooting foul." But, I know what you meant, everyone here knows what you meant. It's not as big a deal as my response indicated.

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.

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

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.:D

btw
 

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.

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

Shooting foul :D

"And two!"

:D

FIBA Ruling:

Clear path. UNS foul.

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