Intentional Foul by the Shooter

[ronny mulkey]

Rut,

I've never called flagrant on this play. But, I have called it intentional after having "missed" it many other times. The play I'm discussing has led to some escalating contact when I just called a normal PC foul. Because of those experiences, I was/am determined to not let this type play continue. I don't even know if "excessive" contact applies to a shooter??? But, this play is rough AND it has intent. I don't see it any differently than the hard contact made ON the shooter.

My point is -it doesn't happen often (not likely as you put it) but it surely fits in your "seen it" category.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Rut,

I've never called flagrant on this play. But, I have called it intentional after having "missed" it many other times. The play I'm discussing has led to some escalating contact when I just called a normal PC foul. Because of those experiences, I was/am determined to not let this type play continue. I don't even know if "excessive" contact applies to a shooter??? But, this play is rough AND it has intent. I don't see it any differently than the hard contact made ON the shooter.

My point is -it doesn't happen often (not likely as you put it) but it surely fits in your "seen it" category.

So a player that is dribbling hard to the basket and they happened to lower their shoulder and run over a player in a LGP, you have called an intentional foul? OK. How did that work out for you?

And my comment again was about the shooter, not anyone else doing any other type of action.

Peace

[BigT]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Rut,

I've never called flagrant on this play. But, I have called it intentional after having "missed" it many other times. The play I'm discussing has led to some escalating contact when I just called a normal PC foul. Because of those experiences, I was/am determined to not let this type play continue. I don't even know if "excessive" contact applies to a shooter??? But, this play is rough AND it has intent. I don't see it any differently than the hard contact made ON the shooter.

My point is -it doesn't happen often (not likely as you put it) but it surely fits in your "seen it" category.

Can you give us some examples and what you would call now based on the above quote please?

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by BigT

Can you give us some examples and what you would call now based on the above quote please?

By "above post", do you mean my post or Rut's post? I have never called a intentional on a dribbler but I have called an intentional on the play that I'm TRYING to describe. It's done on purpose - I see you there and get out of my way next time. No attempt to draw a foul on the defender - just run him over while shooting.

I think I have asked this question before - does excessive contact only apply to a defender (I think the verbiage is 'with an opponent while playing the ball")

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

By "above post", do you mean my post or Rut's post?

He quoted you, not me.

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I have never called a intentional on a dribbler but I have called an intentional on the play that I'm TRYING to describe. It's done on purpose - I see you there and get out of my way next time. No attempt to draw a foul on the defender - just run him over while shooting.

Intentional fouls are not based on if the action is done on purpose. A player might be going hard to the basket on purpose but thinking they are going to get a foul in their favor. That does not mean we call an intentional foul as a result. You have absolutely no rules support for this position.

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

I think I have asked this question before - does excessive contact only apply to a defender (I think the verbiage is 'with an opponent while playing the ball")

No. No one has suggested this only applies to one side of the ball. But I have yet to see an example in interpretation that suggests we are missing or we should call intentional fouls on shooters trying to go to the basket. Maybe if there was OK, at least that is addressed. But you and others IMO are picking nits to fit a definition that does not apply to real world application. And considering how many times I have seen information about a dribbler lowering their shoulder to get to a spot or any action that is basketball related to be called intentional.

Peace

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He quoted you, not me.



Intentional fouls are not based on if the action is done on purpose. A player might be going hard to the basket on purpose but thinking they are going to get a foul in their favor. That does not mean we call an intentional foul as a result. You have absolutely no rules support for this position.



No. No one has suggested this only applies to one side of the ball. But I have yet to see an example in interpretation that suggests we are missing or we should call intentional fouls on shooters trying to go to the basket. Maybe if there was OK, at least that is addressed. But you and others IMO are picking nits to fit a definition that does not apply to real world application. And considering how many times I have seen information about a dribbler lowering their shoulder to get to a spot or any action that is basketball related to be called intentional.

Peace

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.

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?????

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.

[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

[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.

[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 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.