Intentional Foul by the Shooter

[JRutledge]

I cannot imagine a shooter committing an intentional foul. I guess it is possible, but I think it is a solution looking for a problem. But as Bob says, the basket could theoretically count.

Peace

[Adam]

Other than a good exercise in definitions and enforcement, I agree with Jeff. This would be the definition of a sasquatch.

[rfp]

Originally Posted by Adam

Other than a good exercise in definitions and enforcement, I agree with Jeff. This would be the definition of a sasquatch.

It's a question on this year's IAABO test, that's why I bring it up. The idea of counting the basket if it went in seemed strange.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rfp

It's a question on this year's IAABO test, that's why I bring it up. The idea of counting the basket if it went in seemed strange.

Interesting. I should probably get started on that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rfp

It's a question on this year's IAABO test, that's why I bring it up. The idea of counting the basket if it went in seemed strange.

I got it wrong too.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by rfp

It's a question on this year's IAABO test, that's why I bring it up. The idea of counting the basket if it went in seemed strange.

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

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot imagine a shooter committing an intentional foul.

Never seen it but I can imagine a player throwing a deliberate elbow to the head of a defender on his way up. Or maybe a deliberate kick - something like that maybe?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Never seen it but I can imagine a player throwing a deliberate elbow to the head of a defender on his way up. Or maybe a deliberate kick - something like that maybe?

When that happens, take pictures and get video. Even then it might be a man in a monkey suit.

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Well, it's covered in the case book (NFHS & NCAA) so it must have happened at least once

NFHS 4.19.6 SITUATION B:

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control?

RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul. (4-19-2, 4-19-3, 4-19-4)

NCAAW A.R. 74. Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul that would not be a player-control foul?
RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with a personal foul, a flagrant 1 personal foul, a flagrant 2 personal foul or with a flagrant 2 noncontact technical foul. None of these fouls can be a player-control foul. When an airborne shooter commits a foul that is not a player-control foul, the infraction shall be penalized as dictated by the type of foul. (Rule 4-15.2.a.1)

[JRutledge]

I am not convinced that everything in the casebook actually happened. I think the casebook is trying to define what we should do, not necessarily what is reality or has happened. At least that is not why they posted the play.

Peace

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When that happens, take pictures and get video. Even then it might be a man in a monkey suit.

Peace

Wasn't there some controversy (somewhat) recently with Kobe Bryant kicking out his legs at defenders while shooting? I seem to remember this making the rounds on ESPN but I can't find any video evidence on youTube (I assume this is due to NBA copyright rules).

I'm sure it wasn't an "intentional foul" by NBA rules, but I could see how this could happen.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Wasn't there some controversy (somewhat) recently with Kobe Bryant kicking out his legs at defenders while shooting? I seem to remember this making the rounds on ESPN but I can't find any video evidence on youTube (I assume this is due to NBA copyright rules).

I'm sure it wasn't an "intentional foul" by NBA rules, but I could see how this could happen.

Reggie Miller was notorious for kicking out his legs. Not sure it was a controversy but once again, I doubt seriously that anyone is advocating calling such action in any situation of interpretation calling those intentional fouls.

Once again, sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Of course it "could" happen. A lot of things could happen, but how many have actually seen such a thing and called it that way?

Peace

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When that happens, take pictures and get video. Even then it might be a man in a monkey suit.

Peace

Not exactly the same thing, but I remember a play from the Witchita St. vs. Illinois St. game last season where a rebounder intentionally kicked an opponent and was eventually charged (after monitor review) with a flagrant 1 foul. After seeing that play, it doesn't seem as far fetched for a shooter to try the same thing. Unlikely, yes, so unlikely that it could only be done by the man in the monkey suit, maybe not.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Not exactly the same thing, but I remember a play from the Witchita St. vs. Illinois St. game last season where a rebounder intentionally kicked an opponent and was eventually charged (after monitor review) with a flagrant 1 foul. After seeing that play, it doesn't seem as far fetched for a shooter to try the same thing. Unlikely, yes, so unlikely that it could only be done by the man in the monkey suit, maybe not.

If I recall that play was not called a foul at all until the review. We cannot go back and review plays like they can at the NCAA level. There are many examples of calls being made without a whistle after a review for all kinds of plays. And we are not talking about an intentional foul of other players, but with a shooter. That is not the same as what is being talked about with a rebounder or on a screen.

Peace