Another First

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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

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.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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 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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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.

This is where we differ. I think the rule itself (and the case play) actually broadens the definition of intentional foul in these situations. Otherwise, there's no reason to mention "designed to stop the clock or prevent it from starting." The point of the comment, IMO, is to counter-act the previous POE that stated it was an automatic intentional foul when the coach announced it was going to happen. The committee wanted to emphasize the fact that the strategy is valid; but the rules in place also indicate there is a proper way to do it. Fouling a player off the ball is going to be more risky, IMO.

It's not like their best shooter was hitting all of her shots. It was a FG game.

For the record, I had already called an intentional in this game (about a 30 seconds of game time prior to the events in my OP) for a two handed shove on a layup.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

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.

It's not going to affect the way I call it. It's just that being aware of anything in advance makes it easier for us to call it correctly.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Scuba_ref

My take on the Intentional Foul COMMENT is that it narrows what should be considered intentional during the end of game situations.

...if Steve S. is on board with this, then I would say we three are like minded.

Of course, we still judge each act independently, IMO.

[Scuba_ref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

...if Steve S. is on board with this, then I would say we three are like minded.

Of course, we still judge each act independently, IMO.

Sent you two PMs. Second one kicked back because your box is too full.