Intentional or Common, 2 plays (video)
 

You make the calls....


<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/BD9dlxyPWPQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I've got intentional for excessive contact on both. While the second one doesn't seem as excessive, cataloging plays, I am good with IF there.

Play #1: Just a common foul from the angle of the video. L has a better angle on what the defender does with his right hand/arm though, so he must've had something to rule intentional.

Play #2: looks like a common foul to me also (defender is making a play on the ball with his right arm); however, given that the first one was ruled intentional it's not a surprise to me that this was also deemed intentional.

I'm good with IF on both plays. Both plays had excessive contact even though they may have been playing the ball.

I have regular shooting fouls on both.

The first one the player got caught up in the air and the shooter waiting for the defender to land in him. I really do not see anything extra to stop the player from shooting. Maybe if anything is is just trying to to fall hard on him.

The second play looks routine attempt to block the shot (bad attempt) but not any more contact than expected. The only reason to call this if you feel there is more going on in this game. I did not get the impression that was the case here.

Peace

Intentional
Common (now, based on what may have happened earlier in the game and/or time/score...I would be inclined to go with an Intentional - "good game management" might require intentional. Based on this isolated play only - I'd say common foul.)

I like an INT for excessive contact on both of these plays.

In the first, he comes down across his head and neck with his arm.

The second is a body bump and arm down across the neck/shoulders area. Just too much contact with too little attempt to play the ball IMO.

Unless the defender in the first video did something extra with the right hand, I have common fouls on both.

I couldn't imagine calling an INT for a player only getting caught in the air and landing on the shooter. What goes up must come down.

To add a little more information there was nothing that seemed out of the ordinary that took place during this game (i.e., no technicals or any type of rough play). Number one was in the third quarter, number two was in the 4th.

Landing on him isn't the issue IMO, it's the swiping down of his arm and hitting the shooter in the head and neck with force.

I am curious how you got these since this game was is in California. :)

My spies are everywhere!!!

The_Rookie's association posts some of its games on YouTube (DVBOA).

Ah ok, that explains it and the two whistle mechanics.

I agree with that 100%, but it looks like he may wrap up the shooter and pull him to the floor to stop him from getting the shot off. Like it was stated above the L probably saw more than we could from his angle.

2nd foul looks common to me, as others have stated unless it needed to go INT because of something earlier in the game.

I wouldn't classify either foul as "intentional". They both probably looked worse in real time than they do on replay, though.

Of course he put his arms out, he is falling. And I do not feel that is what brought the shooter on the floor. The defender made a bad decision to jump up and the shooter was waiting for him to come down and tries to cause the contact or help the contact. I see this play often and would almost never consider it intentional.

Peace

Yep...I have an INT on the first for that very reason.

I have a common on the 2nd.

Common on both for me.

I do think that both need to be ruled the same in that game.

Play 1: Intentional

Play 2: Common foul

Agree.

It's the fact that his right arm wraps up the head/neck area of the shooter as he is coming down that makes it INT, imho.

Second one looks pretty common, but as others have said, I can see it going INT based on the earlier call.

Agree ... I would have common fouls in both unless there was something else going on in the game. I liked the officials getting together in play #1 and decided to upgrade more than the immediate call in play #2. The trail would have been in a good position to provide info on the defenders attempt to play the ball.

Play 1: the contact of the right arm to A1's head makes it an IF for me

Play 2: under normal circumstances that would be a normal 2-shot PF. But other events in the game (including play 1) may influence this call.

I'm with you guys. I see a lot of kids jump like in Play 1 and land on the shooter. The part where he dragged him to the floor was intentional and excessive contact IMO.

Play 2 would be a common foul for me by itself. Considering the first foul, I can see why they went intentional.

Count me in this camp. #2 is a bit excessive, but by itself it's a quick chat with the defender.

I agree with these responses.
On the first play it seems that the defender got into a tough spot and became afraid that he was going to fall hard so he grabbed the offensive player in whatever manner he could to prevent his own hard landing. That grabbing turned out to be around the head and neck, which dragged down the offensive player.
The fact is that this was excessive contact caused by the defender. It doesn't matter that he may have been trying to prevent his own awkward fall. Too bad. He is the one who decided to jump and put himself in that spot.

The second play is just a regular foul while trying to block a shot, even though the defender is fouling from behind. Going intentional here seems to be an overreaction.

Common on 1; Int on 2.

You're a funny dude.

1. Intentional.
2. Common.