Grabbing An Ankle: Intentional?
 

Didn't see the play. Read about it. A1 with the ball. B1 falls - now on the floor - reaches out and grabs the ankle of A1. I'm trying to think of a scenario where that would NOT be an intentional. It was called an intentional.

Thoughts?

It's hard to envision how this would not be called an intentional.

Here's one possible way it might not be INT: it might be flagrant. :)

Ankle, leg, arm...I don't think it matters. Unable to play the ball, trying to over come a bad defensive position, reaching out to stop the opponent with the ball...INT.

Not A Basketball Play, Penalized As Intentional ...
 

Easy to envision, in a footbal game.

Like those that grab a fistful of jersey near the waist, from the back.

OT in the OT
 

Jacob did that in his first game some 4500 years ago. Wasn't called intentional, but his deception at that young age did play itself out later in life.
:D

Here's The Casebook Citation ...
 

Genesis 25:25: The first one to come out was red. His whole body was covered with hair. So they named him Esau. Then his brother came out. His hand was holding onto Esau’s heel. So he was named Jacob.

This type of play happened to me very early in my college career. In fact, it generated so much conversation in the locker room after the game, that I could tell you the exact teams and location of the game.

I'm the C opposite the table. Team A has the ball in the frontcourt. The ball swings quickly to my side of the court and is deflected by the defense creating a loose ball. Players dive onto the court. The ball is picked up by a player from Team B who is standing. He quickly turns to pass the ball to B2 who is wide open for what will be an easy lay-up at the other end.

However, as B1 is turning to pass the ball, A1 has both his arms wrapped around B1's leg.

I no-called it. B2 got the easy 2 points.

Here's the problem. Coach B saw the obvious holding foul and was upset that I didn't call it.

So the discussion in the locker room centered around whether to call the foul, because the coach obviously saw it and thought it should be called; or to allow the advantage and the easy basket. The consensus was to call it because it was obvious.

I said that if I called it, it would have to be intentional. (This was before the switch to the "Flagrant 1" language.) But nobody really liked that alternative, either. But I stand by the thought-process of that type of foul, if called, being an intentional foul. It's clearly not playing the ball.

However, in my particular situation, I still think the no-call was better, since the result was the easy lay-up.

And, I'm not offended by any means, but it seems to me that quoting the Bible and referring to it as "the casebook" is inappropriate for this venue on at least a couple of levels.

I'm not really complaining, honest. I know we allow a lot of off-topic stuff in the name of humor (which I'm happy about!), I'd just ask you to think about whether that's the kind of thing you really want to post here, Billy.

If A1 is bent over and the ball is down by his ankle, and B1 grabs for the ball and gets ankle, I could have a common foul.

I completely agree with this point of view.

And I completely don't. It was meant to be humorous. Lighten up.

I have no problem with a no-call in this situation, and telling the coach to STFU if he's mad I didn't call it, simply on the principle of advantage/disadvantage. If he wants to argue it further, he'll get his foul soon enough.

Freddy, I Owe You One, Be Prepared ...
 

I was simply explaining the Bible story that Freddy was referring to in case some Forum members was wondering what he was talking about. Up until a few years ago, I would not have known what he was talking about, and I'm sure that there are others in Forum land who had no idea what Freddy was referring to.

Freddy: Thanks for getting me in trouble.

That Freddy, He's A Real Card ...
 

Thanks, but my post was actually meant to be informative, not humorous. I believe that Freddy's original post was meant to be humorous, but I should let him speak for himself. I could be wrong, I usually am, just ask any veteran Forum membesr, or my ex-wife.

I, for one, am just glad that Billy didn't post a picture based on this post:

Now that is a funny post!

Take A Left At The End Of The Descending Colon ...
 

Be careful, don't give me any ideas. I'm getting a colonoscopy tomorrow, and I can post photos on the Forum if anybody is interested in my results.

And with that....let's get this back towards on topic before I issue a pre-emptive strike on Billy's account. :)

Would it involve a "drone" attack? Or maybe just an image of a UAV?

http://s3-blogs.mentor.com/jvandomel...v-predator.jpg

Here is video of the play in question. Go to 1:26:45. Defender on the ground reaches out and grabs the ankle of the player with the ball.

9th Region Boys Semis - Holmes vs. Cooper | Tri State Internet Sports Radio Videos | iHigh.com

<iframe src="http://www.ihigh.com/tristateinternetsportsradio/broadcast_285742.html?silverlight=1&action=embedde dPlayer" width="530" height="540" frameborder="no" scrolling="auto" style="position:relative;z-index:0;"></iframe>

I for one did not get the joke the first time, so this was much appreciated.

And back on topic of the video ... it seems like its intentional ... but from that far away, it would be easy to be fooled if the player fouled was exaggerating the contact.

looks like intentional.

Not sure why that wasn't an intentional to be frank.

It certainly could have been but I guess it was missing the element of stopping an an opponent in an obviously advantageous position. It isn't like the fouled player was looking at an open shot.

The Importance Of Being Earnest ...
 

What's wrong with just being Adam?

Yeah, I get that. But intentionally grabbing a player's ankle isn't basketball, and it's certainly a safety risk. This play is an intentional for me (I won't say "in my game") 10 times out of 10.

How About The Eleventh Time ???
 

No wiggle room?

Once I've seen the play ten times, I'll worry about what to do the eleventh.

I don't disagree, just offering a reason some may not call an intentional.