What you guys Think of this? (Video)

[bob jenkins]

Might part of whether this is intentional or common depend on whether Blue had been "trying to foul" before this?

I'm sure it does vary by area as well.

[asdf]

The whole game is here....

go to 1:02.10 to see another intentional foul on the throw-in after the first one...

Boys' Basketball Lorain vs. Norwalk 1-11-14 - YouTube

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by asdf

The whole game is here....

go to 1:02.10 to see another intentional foul on the throw-in after the first one...

Boys' Basketball Lorain vs. Norwalk 1-11-14 - YouTube

I would also point out that the officials administered the throw-in at the incorrect spot after the second intentional foul. That foul occurred just below the free throw line, inside the key. They still gave white the ball at the division line after the free throws. Throw-in should have been administered on the end line based on where the foul occurred.

[constable]

Common foul on the first. The T is warranted. The 2nd Int I could go either way on.

[JWP]

Not sure I would have called the I.F., but I can see why it was called. Put together the P.O.E. along with the kinda hug, and in my mind, the case for the I.F. can be made.

As a guy who also does play-by-play for the local high school team on the radio, I am embarrassed by the two clowns on the air. Nothing wrong with being supportive of the team you are covering ... but these bozos are way, way over the top.

[JRutledge]

It looks like he basically hugged the ball handler. But that would be helped by a better angle. Otherwise I am just going to with a regular common foul. I would not care how the player acted while being fouled to determine what type of foul was called.

It is certainly not a "horrible call" as suggested. Might not be a great call, but not horrible.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Might part of whether this is intentional or common depend on whether Blue had been "trying to foul" before this?

I'm sure it does vary by area as well.

I would hope not. The foul should be judged on the contact, not their desire to get the clock stopped.

The foul wasn't excessive contact and while it may have been designed to stop the clock, he was actually poking at the ball....which keeps it common.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The foul should be judged on the contact, not their desire to get the clock stopped.

Not according to the first line of 4-19-3 (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). If A1 had just been standing there and B1 ran up to him and hugged him - in a non-violent manner - to pick up a foul, that's an IF.

That being said I can live with an IF on the first play but I wouldn't have been shocked if it had been called a common foul. The second one...eh. I thought the ball handler was off balance but given what had just been called so be it.

As for the T, we can't hear what was said but good, bad or indifferent call we all know there are certain things that are automatic. I'd have to think the last thing the official wanted to do was ring someone up after the IF but it is what it is.

Oh...to the folks who posted the vids, when you embed a YouTube clip you can set it to start at a certain point. That way some of us on very slow work computers don't have to wait for the video to buffer

[Pantherdreams]

For the officials who think the "bear hug" motion by the defender could warrant an intentional. If the defender, is behind/ on the backside of the offensive player and can't swipe or chop at the ball. If he also wants to reach to get the ball and is willing/instructed to risk taking foul. Do you feel he can't reach for the ball around the body with both hands to assure he gets to make a play on the ball regardless of which hand it ends up in?

If he was in front and reached with both I wouldn't see if being a problem. Why if the offensive player chooses to put his body between the player and the ball does this stop being a play on the basketball.

Just curious unless there is excessive contact or absolutely no play on the ball at all we wouldn't go intentional around these here parts. So long as the player is reaching for the ball and contact is not excessive we've got a common foul.

[ballgame99]

Its all been said at this point, but my reaction was that was a common foul. He's making enough of a play on the ball for me and the contact wasn't excessive. And unless the HC called him a c**ksucker at full volume, I think you need to lay off the T.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Its all been said at this point, but my reaction was that was a common foul. He's making enough of a play on the ball for me and the contact wasn't excessive. And unless the HC called him a c**ksucker at full volume, I think you need to lay off the T.

The T was for #3, who obviously came up to the calling officials and said at least one magic word.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

For the officials who think the "bear hug" motion by the defender could warrant an intentional.... If the defender...wants to reach to get the ball and is willing/instructed to risk taking [a] foul[,] Do you feel he can't reach for the ball around the body with both hands to assure he gets to make a play on the ball regardless of which hand it ends up in?

Usually, though not always.

Reaching around a ballhandler with one hand is generally a play on the ball. What does one hope to accomplish with using both arms, especially in that scenario? If you're very lucky and have Gumbyesque arms, you might get a held ball out of the deal, but how often do we see steals from behind using both arms?

From my viewpoint, if the defender in the OP's video solely had used his left arm, it would be a common foul, and he possibly (although not likely) could have stolen the ball. As others have pointed out, the reason the IF rule was put into place was to prevent these late fouls to stop the clock. If you're going to foul, fine, but make a play on the ball.

I had a very strange IPF last week: A1 gets a defensive rebound, and while he started dribbling back the other way, B2 reaches around A1's waist and pulls him back, as if A1 were a running back breaking away. It wasn't particularly malicious, just a matter-of-fact hug from behind. What made this excessively strange is Team B was AHEAD 7 points with 2:30ish to go. I had to double-check the scoreboard to make sure I had the right team in the lead. I did. Still baffled.

Originally Posted by bainsey

I had to double-check the scoreboard to make sure I had the right team in the lead.

This sounds fishy with no context.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

As others have pointed out, the reason the IF rule was put into place was to prevent these late fouls to stop the clock.

This statement couldn't be more false, IMO.

[j51969]

The two knobs in the booth are priceless!