Another First

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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

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.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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.

Did you read the ruling in 4.19.3C?

It is an intentional personal foul designed to stop the clock from starting or to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

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.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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.

[Scuba_ref]

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

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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

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

[PG_Ref]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

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.

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.