Interesting. I should probably get started on that.

Jet Man gave us the appropriate Casebook Play/Approved Rulings (CP/AR) for boys'/girls' H.S. and women's college. The ruling for NCAA Men's would be the same.

While we can debate the probabilities of an IPF or FPF being committed by a Shooter let us look at this play at a slightly different angle to see why the CP/ARs are what they are.

We can divide Personal Fouls (PF) into three categories:
(1) IPF;
(2) FPF;
(3) all other PFs.

Category (3) can be subdivided into:
(a) Common Fouls (CF);
(b) fouls committed against a Player Trying or Tapping for a Field Goal (FG);
(c) not a IF, FF, part of a Double Foul (DF) or a Multiple Foul (MF).

We also know that by definition a Player Control Foul (PCF) is a CF.

How can we approach A1's IPF? Look to the definition of Continuous Motion. Think of A1's IPF as happening away from the ball. Did the Foul occur whilte the ball was in A1's hand(s) (See two-hand set shot, Red Klotz, and the Washington Generals, but I digress.) or had A1 released the ball for his Try, and proceed from there.

MTD, Sr.

College does not have intentional fouls anymore, so we do not have to worry about that part. And intentional fouls at the HS level (and when college had them) they were not based on intent.

Peace

More than a few years ago, I'd agree with that. But now, with the way some interpret the elbow rules and the way I've seen some calls get made even in big D1 games, there is more of a possibility.

If the shooter goes in with a leading elbow to the face of a defender, that could easily be ruled an intentional foul given the new interpretations.

And it is not that far fetched. I saw a game on TV last year where a dribbler, while going to the basket completely and inadvertently clipped a guy in the face with his elbow while going by him. The arm was only moving as everyone's arms move when they run. Upon review, the called it a FF1. I was stunned. 1/2 a second later, the guy was shooting. Not that far fetched.

Apples and apples. They only changed the name for clarity. The underlying fouls have largely remained the same.

In The Immortal Words Of Homer Jay Simpson ...
 

I got it wrong too.

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.48067...64351&pid=15.1

Actually they did change or add some wording.

And unless I misunderstood, this was a question that did not include NCAA. NCAA put in rules for elbow contact that the NF has not explicitly stated were to be called more then a common foul. And even then the NCAA backed off of their explicit language that would make all elbow contact a FF1 as it was previously.

I have no problem if people want to learn the definitions. My point was it is unlikely. We can always play the "what if" game in any rule. It is just not likely to be something that someone would call unless they go looking to make that call.

Peace

Hmm. It also wouldn't matter at the NCAA level, since any foul committed by a player after he shoots isn't a PC foul anyway.

You are, of course, correct. ;)

But that difference wasn't related to the change from Int. to FF1. It existed before.

I have seen a ball handler line up a defender and plow him over on purpose.

Annnd? What did you have? PC or IF? Was he shooting? Did the shot go in? Et cetera...

This would be the play you're talking about (I posted it last season):

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yHOvpZPPLP8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We must get a different IAABO test in Missouri. I don't remember any such question. I will recheck

Yes, that is the play. The contact by the shooter isn't as severe as I thought I remembered, but even with early onset dementia, I still got the teams right.

And I do not consider any of that action as an "intentional foul" as I stated earlier. All I am saying is I do not imagine a shooter committing and Intentional foul. If people want to get into all the "what ifs" that is fine, I just think it is a practice in futility most of the time. I think it is better to stick with real world situations, rather then things that are not likely to be called or seen.

Peace