My opinion is that this is over ruled by the comment as it relates to end of game situations where a team is fouling to stop the clock - mostly because it states as much in the case book. While the rule book tells us what to call, the case book tells us how to call.

This would be just like any other good off ball call at an earlier time in the game. The fact that they let you know they are targeting a poor free throw shooter by number means nothing. They would target him/her anyway. The fact that they are letting you know ahead of time should have no bearing on the call.

If however the foul itself rises to the standard of an intentional foul as described in rule 4-19-3 (other than just to stop the clock) then yes I have an intentional foul.

Are you going intentional on all off ball fouls prior to the last couple minutes of the game?

Irrelevant. The rule specifies calling an INT for off-ball fouls intended to stop the clock.

The rules provide the losing team a way to foul in order to stop the clock. As usual, you don't have to like the rule.

Exactly. 4.19.3.C is the relevant case play, and I should have told the coach that fouling a player off ball in this situation has a lower threshold for intentional. (4-19-3b and 4-19-3c)

In the end, it didn't matter. #55 broke for a long pass and never stopped running. Green defender never caught up and wasn't even able to make contact. White got a layup with about 20 seconds left.

If they are "basketball plays", then no. But if it's just a bear hug or whack across the arm for no other purpose, then yes.

95% of the time, the offense knows who the defense will want to foul and will not have that player involved in the play until the frist 3 options break down. Any foul prior to that is *likely* to fall into the INT category.

And that is all I am trying to say...we have to judge the act.

Case 4.19.3.C uses foul examples that would be intentional at any point during the game...grabbing the jersey or a two-handed push in the back. A hold by the defense on an offensive player away from the ball that would get a hold call in the third quarter will still get a hold call at the end of the fourth quarter. I'm not upgrading to an intentional simply because I know the defense is trying to stop the clock. The case book comment gives me all I need to defend that call. The comment doesn't state the foul has to be against the player with the ball.

I find that a lot of officials are hesitant to call "excessive contact" INT fouls ... is that common across the board? Maybe it's just a case of what different individuals consider excessive.

Did you read the ruling in 4.19.3C?
Like I told the coach, it's not an automatic INT, but I should have added that the threshold for it goes down in this situation if they try to foul a player not involved in the play.

I don't see a lot of excessive contact that would warrant an upgrade. Had one close last week, and talked to the guilty party (8G boys). He got the message.

We are not going to agree on this. The following is my opinion and is how I call the late stages of close games:

Yes I read the case play...I quoted the two foul examples used in the case play. Those two examples are most likely getting an intentional from me at any stage of the game and so they really are poor examples to use in that case.

Did you read the COMMENT? The COMMENT modifies the intentional foul rule sort of like an exception. During late game situations it is an acceptable practice to foul. A common off-ball foul late in the game is not getting upgraded to an intentional simply because it occured in the late stages of the game even if the perceived intent was to stop the clock. The COMMENT doesn't state that the foul must be committed against the player with the ball. However, an off-ball two-handed push in the back or a blatant grab of the jersey will get an intentional because the act in and of itself qualifies as an intentional foul.

I honestly don't think we're that far apart, but you're right, we're probably not going to agree.

But, I was able to get my post count up on this discussion. That was a definite plus! :D

...what would Steve S., from up your way, do?;)

Prior to the last couple of minutes, the "designed to stop the clock......" part of the rule is not applicable. In the last couple of minutes it is applicable, which means the same action is easier to rule as an intentional foul.

As you say, the action must still be judged.

Look at it this way, if a player travels the first 6 times he touches the ball, there is a good chance he will travel the 7th time. I will still judge the act, but if I know what to expect, I am less likely to miss it.

I'm fairly confident that he would call it very similar to how I am calling it. I'll ask him next time I see him.

I understand what you are saying, but if there was a COMMENT that said Travelling is an acceptable coaching and playing strategy near the end of the game then that would affect the way you call travelling. My take on the Intentional Foul COMMENT is that it narrows what should be considered intentional during the end of game situations.

In reality, like Snaq's said, we are all probably closer together on this then we can describe in words. I have called intentional fouls at the end of games when a team is trying to stop the clock and the fouling action goes over the line. I have not called any intentional fouls at the end of games where there is some off-ball foul intended to stop the clock where the foul isn't anything other than a common foul. Having said that, most teams know to foul or go after the player with the ball and so it is pretty easy to avoid this issue altogether.