Intentional Foul by the Shooter
 

If A-1 drives to the basket and commits an intentional foul on the shot, by definition it's not a player control foul since a PCF is a common foul. If the shot goes in, though, that would mean the basket would count, no? Seems like an odd result. Am I missing something?

If the try is in flight, it counts. If the try is not in flight, it does not count.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

I understand all that. I was just pointing out that before seeing this play, most people wouldn't have imagined an airborne rebounder lining up an opponent and kicking him on purpose either. Now that it has happened, I can see the potential of some jackass doing the same thing while shooting. I wasn't referring to how you handle or call the play in anyway, just the odds of it actually happening.

Also, if I am not mistaken, there was a play in a college game last season where a 3-point shooter, after releasing the ball and while still in the air, grabbed his defender and threw him down. The shooter was called for a foul. It wasn't deemed an intentional foul, but it could have because it was a non-basketball play. I am thinking this happened in a Marquette or Georgetown game and was perhaps reviewed on this site.

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

SniperBBB has a real world situation. Shooter "lines his defender up in his sight", gathers the ball, lowers his shoulder and runs over the defender. I don't know if this is likely but I have seen it many times.

And how many times have you called this an intentional or flagrant foul?

Peace

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

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

This could be intentional, but it just sounds like a really-easy-to-call PC foul.

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")

Aremred,

If you say "could" then I feel good with this play that I'm trying to describe. As Rut is saying - not likely - but as SniperBBB states - "seen it".

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.

It Could Happen ...
 

How about a "stiff arm" to the face, like in football?

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.45974...55782&pid=15.1

Someone could die in the locker room and we would have to penalize the team for not being on the court and ready to play too, but I have never heard anyone suggest that should be the case and T up a team for such action.

And yes that was a serious question for a football class a few years ago. :rolleyes:

Peace

When was the last time you saw a shooter try and stiff arm a defender like a football player? The closest would be a wipe off by the shooter, but I've never see that come close to the level of an intentional foul.

Maybe, but Camron made a good point with regard to the newly stiff penalties associated with elbow contact. This scenario is suddenly more likely than it was 4 years ago.

No, I still haven't seen it.

How About Two Fingers To The Eyes, Like Moe Does To Curly ???
 

Never. JRutledge said that he couldn't imagine, so I'm using my imagination, and I'm trying to imagine.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Owner Of A John Deere Tractor, You Left Your Lights On ...
 

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.

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...
 

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.

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

Intentional?
 

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....

A Little Known Codicile in the Faber College Charter...
 

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