Intentional or Common, 2 plays (video)

[JetMetFan]

You make the calls....

[walt]

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.

[jTheUmp]

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.

[Indianaref]

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

[JRutledge]

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

[twocentsworth]

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.)

[Welpe]

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.

[Rich]

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.

[JetMetFan]

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

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.

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

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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).

[Welpe]

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

[CountTheBasket]

Originally Posted by Rich

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.

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.

[#olderthanilook]

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