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 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.