Intentional Foul by the Shooter

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Intentional fouls are not based on if the action is done on purpose.

That is a common misconception. Some intentional fouls are not, but some still are. That is why they are called intentional fouls. The rule was just modified over time to also include some fouls that were not based on intent...and those are still intentional fouls regardless of intent.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

The purpose is not to go to the basket. The purpose is to run over the defender to discourage him from being there next time. Change "on purpose" to "premeditated" and you will have all kinds of rule support in the definition. There is also "include, but not limited to" in the definition.

OK if you say so.

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

The play that I'm trying to describe is nothing similar to your dribbler scenario. Sniper's description was clear to me. There is a possibility that if you saw the play that I have seen, that you might assess a flagrant?????

I did not give a scenario, I was responding to your situation. And what you originally described sounded like an every day PC foul most of us see.

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Anyway, the intentional has worked for me. Did the coach like it? No. Been there. Missed it. Play got rougher. Called an intentional. Play settled down.

Glad it worked out. Just keep in mind I am sure for many this is the very first time they have had one suggest to call an intentional foul for sure an action. And like said on the other board, I could not say, "Well this guy on this Officials Forum said....."

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

That is a common misconception. Some intentional fouls are not, but some still are. That is why they are called intentional fouls. The rule was just modified over time to also include some fouls that were not based on intent...and those are still intentional fouls regardless of intent.

It is not a misconception. The rule says they can be predetermined or not. In other words if they do not decide to do something on purpose and cause excessive contact or clearly are not playing the ball, it can be an intentional foul. So intent is not a factor. Just like a flagrant is not about what you do on purpose. But if you are extremely violent and savage in nature, that is still a flagrant foul.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is not a misconception. The rule says they can be predetermined or not. In other words if they do not decide to do something on purpose and cause excessive contact or clearly are not playing the ball, it can be an intentional foul. So intent is not a factor. Just like a flagrant is not about what you do on purpose. But if you are extremely violent and savage in nature, that is still a flagrant foul.

Peace

Read what you wrote. You just made my point.

There are some intentional fouls that are so with or without intent....those that are too rough/excessive.

Fouling without playing the ball IS intent. Hard to do so without intent.

There are others that are based on intent. The class of fouls that are based on not playing the ball and stopping the clock or neutralizing an advantageous position of an opponent are all based on actual intent. Just because a player fouls and causes the clock to stop doesn't make it intentional. Just because contact takes away an opponents advantage doesn't make it intentional.The foul must have been committed for the purpose of stopping the clock, for the purpose of stopping the opponent in an advantageous position...that is intent and intent is what makes it intentional.

[JRutledge]

Camron,

I did not say that an intentional foul could not be an intentional act. I said that it is not about what you do on purpose. Unless any of us can read minds and I know I cannot, then we call the foul based on the action and sometimes the result of the contact, not based on the intent. And that is why the NCAA changed their language to Flagrant 1 and 2 fouls. Everyone focuses on the wording of the foul, not the action that it causes.

Also all fouls away from the ball are not intentional fouls. Rebounding fouls are not always intentional fouls. Screens set by both offense or defense are not intentional fouls. Bumping the cutters are not considered intentional fouls no matter what. And I am sure all those on some level occur with some purpose.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Camron,

I did not say that an intentional foul could not be an intentional act. I said that it is not about what you do on purpose.
Peace

I guess next you'll tell me that blue isn't blue.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

OK if you say so.



I did not give a scenario, I was responding to your situation. And what you originally described sounded like an every day PC foul most of us see.



Glad it worked out. Just keep in mind I am sure for many this is the very first time they have had one suggest to call an intentional foul for sure an action. And like said on the other board, I could not say, "Well this guy on this Officials Forum said....."

Peace

Part of the problem is my inability to describe my play. And, the point I was trying to make is that I have seen it and called an intentional. Does that mean YOU should call it for sure? No. Is it an option? I think so.

I understand that you guys have some good basketball in the Chicago area but around here our basketball is God awful. Football players who get a kick out of running over people, for example.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Football players who get a kick out of running over people, for example.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we get a lot of this in some of our small, rural, high schools. On Thanksgiving, playing linebacker, at 250 pounds, on the football team; two weeks later, the starting center of the basketball team.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Only once in all of my years of officiating basketball have I charged a player in control of the ball with an IPF. B1 gains control of the ball in Team A's front court with his back to his own team's basket. He looked to his left and saw A1 standing to his left in a LGP, he then then looked to his right and saw A2 standing to his right in a LGP. B1 then looked back to his left and then pivoted toward his left, swinging his elbows considerably faster than the rest of his body, and planted his left elbow in A1's chest knocking him flat on his tuchus.

MTD, Sr.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Only once in all of my years of officiating basketball have I charged a player in control of the ball with an IPF. B1 gains control of the ball in Team A's front court with his back to his own team's basket. He looked to his left and saw A1 standing to his left in a LGP, he then then looked to his right and saw A2 standing to his right in a LGP. B1 then looked back to his left and then pivoted toward his left, swinging his elbows considerably faster than the rest of his body, and planted his left elbow in A1's chest knocking him flat on his tuchus.

MTD, Sr.

Your play is my player only my play has one defender and the contact was made with the offensive player's shoulder. Thanks for helping describe this type of play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Part of the problem is my inability to describe my play. And, the point I was trying to make is that I have seen it and called an intentional. Does that mean YOU should call it for sure? No. Is it an option? I think so.

I understand that you guys have some good basketball in the Chicago area but around here our basketball is God awful. Football players who get a kick out of running over people, for example.

My officiating experience is not just limited to one part of the state. Secondly we have bad basketball even in the Chicago area and football players too. And running someone over is not in itself an intentional foul. And the play discribed is still not what I was originally talking about. This still has little or nothing to do with a shooter.

Peace

[BigT]

I had a youth game with a college players son stealing the ball. His team was much better than the other team. He is on his way for a fast break and sees this younger kid trying to catch up to him. He looks for his shoulder at this hustling kid slows down and while flipping the ball toward the basket goes backwards into this poor kids chest and head. I call a PC foul. Now I am wondering if I should have consider upgrading to an IF based on that he went backwards looking to make un-needed contact with this defender....

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by BigT

I had a youth game with a college players son stealing the ball. His team was much better than the other team. He is on his way for a fast break and sees this younger kid trying to catch up to him. He looks for his shoulder at this hustling kid slows down and while flipping the ball toward the basket goes backwards into this poor kids chest and head. I call a PC foul. Now I am wondering if I should have consider upgrading to an IF based on that he went backwards looking to make un-needed contact with this defender....

Not everyone knows about it, and it may have disappeared from the most recent rulebook, but this might be a good time to enact the penalty for 10-3-6z: "Being a major butthead."
And when the college player father asks you after the game, "What do you think about my son's execution?", you say, "I'd be in favor of it."

[BigT]

Originally Posted by freddy

not everyone knows about it, and it may have disappeared from the most recent rulebook, but this might be a good time to enact the penalty for 10-3-6z: "being a major butthead."
and when the college player father asks you after the game, "what do you think about my son's execution?", you say, "i'd be in favor of it."
:d

roflmao