Intentional
 

This conversation came up at our association meeting last night. One of the varsity officials said at the end of their game with maybe 20 seconds left, A1 is trying to inbound the ball. Clocked is stopped and B2 fouls A2. Nothing extraordinary, just playing defense. He said they called an intentional foul. What are your thoughts on this?

If the ball hasnt left his hands on the throw in it has to be more than a common foul.

Why?

Not necessarily true...in this situation, you have to decide if the foul was committed soley for the purpose of preventing the clock from being started.

If the defender contacts the player in bounding the ball, per 4-19-3(e) and 9-2-10 penalty 4, it is an intentional foul.

"The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass."

Penalty: If an opponents(s) contacts the thrower, an intential personal foul shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

Dave, you should read the OP more carefully. A1 is the person making the throw in. The foul is by B2 on A2. The rule you cited has no bearing.

For clarification, the foul was not on the thrower, but on another player on the floor.

Why would this be anything but a common foul, as described? It would likely not be an I if it happened maybe 20 seconds into the game.

Now, I agree that my antennae go up near the end of the game, and I might not deem it to be "nothing extraordinary, just playing defense" -- but that's not what (apparently) happened.

A1 is throwing it in.
A2 gets fouled.

This (the OP) is not an intentional foul.

I've heard it said by some very high level officials that it should automatically be intentional, but there is nothing in the rules that require it to be so. They were just mixing up the foul-on-the-thrower rule. The foul is what it is on it own without regard to it being a throwin.

Actually this was the discussion. That because the clock was stopped near the end of the game it had to be intentional. I for one disagree. There were some in the party of any foul by the defense while the ball is out of bounds is intentional. Again, I disagree.

Ask them for a rule reference on that. I'm curious how they'll answer.

Yep. :o

Any intentional foul by the defense while the ball is out of bounds is intentional. But just to call any contact an intentional simply because of the location of the ball is preposterous.

If the D is playing it strait and just gets a little overzealous and creates some contact I'm not sure how you would call it intentional. It would take a jersey grab, an unnecessary hug, or excessive contact with a big man well away from the play to get an intentional from me.

They were using the to "keep the clock from starting/stopping" clause.

If it's "regular defense," then it's regular defense.

Do they call an intentional when the ball handler is fouled to stop the clock?

This is the most logical argument against theirs. I like it.

Sharp are they saying a kid playing denial defense on a Team A player who commits a foul on a throw-in late in the game deserves an intentional? They’d better be prepared to call a T on Team B’s HC because that’s what’s going to happen.

(Sigh) The old “contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play” clause. Sometimes the ability to read the rule book can be a dangerous thing. By their logic they’d also have to call an intentional foul if B1 bumped a cutter who was on the other side of the court in that scenario.

What is the foul is to put the worst foul shooter on the line and he is not involved with the play and to keep the clock from running?

Rule: 4-19-3


ART. 3

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:

a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.

c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.

d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

4.19.3 SITUATION D:

Late in the fourth quarter Team B is trailing by six points. Team B's head coach begins to yell to his or her players to "foul, foul, foul!" B1 responds by (a) grabbing A1 from behind, or (b) reaching for the ball but illegally contacting A1 on the arm.

RULING: In (a), an intentional foul shall be called. In (b), a common foul shall be called as B1 was making a legitimate attempt to "play the ball."

COMMENT: Fouling near the end of a game is an acceptable coaching and playing strategy. Officials must determine if a foul is intentional by judging the fouling act itself, not whether or not the coach instructed a player to perform the act.

I remember learning something on this site long ago.

If you havent handed the ball to the inbounder and their is decent severe illegal contact isn't it call one way.

If the ball is at his disposal wouldnt the rule and case book above be used to term if its common or intentional?

And can anyone explain a scenario or situation where a team wants to prevent the clock from starting and what penalty for the contact they called?

Depending on what they do I can imagine a DOG or T.

The case play covers two distinct plays. It is not absolute in any possible way. You have to consider each play on its own merits and determine whether it was intentional or common. That's why they pay us the big bucks.

The call in this situation has nothing to do with the play being a throw in, it is called a certain way because the ball is dead. When there is contact that is not incidental while the ball is dead, it is a technical foul.

Thank you.

Basically you can have common fouls when the clock is stopped and the ball is in the hands of the person throwing in the ball.

If you think they are fouling the big man to get him on the line you could call an intentional?

If they grab their best player to prevent him from getting open you could call another IF.

Wouldnt you say most referees shy away from the IF unless it is super obvious to not get pulled into the spot light?

I had a coach ask for this. Defender went up to his player and held her jersey until my partner called it. He started screaming intentional.

Only the ones that shouldn't be officiating in the first place. If you think a play is an intentional foul, and it meets the requirements of the rule, have some balls and call the intentional foul. If you cannot do that, then stay home and help your wife cook dinner.

Sounds like the coach had it right. Only question in this play is whether it is a personal foul (ball live) or technical foul (ball dead).

Johnny you are awesome!

I should have this framed. It is the first and will most likely be the last and only time Johnny and awesome will be found in the same sentence on this forum. :D

That one, I would call intentional.

It's a play different from the one described in the OP. Thus, the different ruling.

Coach was not right. If fouling at the end of game to stop the clock and force the other team to shoot free throws so they can get the ball back is an intentional foul then I guess every official I have ever seen officiate this situation has called it wrong.

Grabbing a jersey to force that scenario is just about always an intentional foul around here. And we do call it that way.

Yes, I wouldn't say that.

Actually committing a foul, by playing over-agressive defense, is good. Grabbing a jersey just to stop the clock? That's going to draw an X every time around here.

In unrelated news that few to none of you care about in FIBA any foul before the ball is inbounded in the last 2 minutes is automatically unsportsmanlike.

I understand. In my situation I was L tableside. A1 had the ball right in front of T. B1 tried to slap the ball away from A1 but misses and fouls A1. T does not call it as he is straight lined. A1 is just standing in place holding the ball. B1 tries another tactic and pulls A1's jersey, maybe about 2-3 inches. B1 then looks at T until he sees it and calls it. The coach screamed intentional but no way I am calling an INT after my partner missed the first foul and based on the tiny amount of shirt-holding going on.

In the NBA, outside of the final 2 of the 4th/OT, foul before the release is two shots automatically to the person who was fouled...inside of two, it's an away-from-the-play foul and thus 1 shot by anyone on the court at the time of the foul and the ball back.

Sorry, but if you saw the first foul, you should have just called that first foul. End of game, I have no problem with a partner coming in to get this.

If neither of you saw the first foul, the only real option here is the INT.

B1 should have continued to play defense. There are lots of better options than grabbing the jersey, and most of them come with a remote chance of a steal.

Edited to add: This is how I would do it; if your area wants you to avoid intentional fouls like the plague, do it that way.

what?!?! :)

That depends on your definition of "legitimate attempt to play the ball/player". I'd rather not become a pioneer in calling INT's that are actually ants/minnows/misdemeanors.

Coach was male, player was female. Tsk tsk MD.

I agree.

Sure there can be some disagreement on this, but pulling the jersey is not ever a legitimate attempt to play defense.

As far as being a pioneer, maybe you can be the first person in your area to realize the game situation, understand what the defense is likely to do, and then get the original foul so you don't find yourself in the compromising position of ignoring an obvious intentional foul.

Honestly, I don't see a jersey grab as the ant/minnow/whatevers. Jersey grabs are as close to automatic as it gets; and when it's done in a clear attempt to stop the clock rather than play the ball, it's easier.

Look, I don't pick the nits on this; if it's borderline, I'll ask the player to do me a favor and at least pretend to play for the ball. But if they just skip all that and go straight to grabbing a jersey, they've given up playing defense.

I'd get more grief for not calling that than I'd get for calling it: from my assigner and, less importantly, from the coaches. Even the guilty player's coach would wonder why we didn't call that.

tsk tsk? "Coach" was not even in the sentence. The only person "his" could have referred to in that sentence was "the defender".

So the coach grabbed a player's jersey?

Come on man. I knew what was meant. :)