Hard Foul

[The_Rookie]

A1 driving to the basket on a breakaway. B1 chases from behind..attempts to swat at the ball. His momentum causes him to crash into the back of A1 which results in A1 going into the wall behind the basket.

I was Lead and my initial call was a common foul. Because of the Hard nature of the foul, before reeporting to the table, I consulted with my partner who was trail and asked about excessive contact and playing the ball. He chimed in that B1 was playing the ball, so no upgrade to an Intentional or Flagrant.

Question: Was this handled correctly in terms of communicating as a unit before I reported to the Table? Should I have just gone with my common foul call and not even chat with my partner?
Thanks!

[maven]

Nothing wrong with discussing it. As your partner, I would have told you what I saw and gone over any rule issue with you. It's still your call all the way.

Remember you may call an INT based on excessive contact alone. I did not see your play, but it sounds pretty rough, and the contact need not be deliberate to warrant an INT.

[Camron Rust]

Could go either way....careless or reckless play could easily be an intentional foul even if playing the ball. HTBT.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

A1 driving to the basket on a breakaway. B1 chases from behind..attempts to swat at the ball. His momentum causes him to crash into the back of A1 which results in A1 going into the wall behind the basket.

I was Lead and my initial call was a common foul. Because of the Hard nature of the foul, before reeporting to the table, I consulted with my partner who was trail and asked about excessive contact and playing the ball. He chimed in that B1 was playing the ball, so no upgrade to an Intentional or Flagrant.

Question: Was this handled correctly in terms of communicating as a unit before I reported to the Table? Should I have just gone with my common foul call and not even chat with my partner?
Thanks!

1. Glad that you thought that this foul may require a more severe penalty than just a common foul.
2. Unfortunate that your partner is wrong about the rule. Simply playing the ball does NOT prevent an intentional personal foul from correctly being called. Your partner gave you poor advice. See 4-19-3d.
3. From your description of the play, this warrants at least an intentional personal foul and perhaps a flagrant personal foul.

[JugglingReferee]

I like Nevada's bullets 1 and 2.

For bullet 3, I think Camron is right. It's a had-to-be-there play. However, going with an INT when a player crashes into the wall is usually an easy sell. If the contact is severe, your calling philosophy could be start with an INT for excessive contact, and then see if there is anything that warrants just a common shooting foul.