New rules on contact / hand-checking

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

We had one play where the player committed a foul (by the standards of the new rule) just after the ball handler had beat him and had a clear path to the basket.

It was a multiple touch on the ball handler by the defender, BTW.

I still think this is one where you want to have a slow whistle. The NFHS may not agree, however. Hopefully all our states will give us guidance.

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

Good luck with that one

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

I believe not.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

I believe not.

Why do you believe that?
You state that the player had his opponent beaten and a clear path to the basket when the opponent fouled him.
What do you want to do--charge a common foul and award a throw-in?
Doesn't seem fair to the offensive team and permits the defense to take advantage of a rule. This is exactly why the first part of the intentional personal foul rule was written.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why do you believe that?
You state that the player had his opponent beaten and a clear path to the basket when the opponent fouled him.
What do you want to do--charge a common foul and award a throw-in?
Doesn't seem fair to the offensive team and permits the defense to take advantage of a rule. This is exactly why the first part of the intentional personal foul rule was written.

I think it's an unfortunate result of the new rules that a defender may inadvertently benefit. If I think the player did it on purpose to prevent a layup, I'd go with the intentional, but I'd have to be about 99% certain of his intent. I don't think the rules committee wanted us to turn contact that was previously incidental (zero impact on the opponent) into an intentional foul.

I could be wrong, though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think it's an unfortunate result of the new rules that a defender may inadvertently benefit. If I think the player did it on purpose to prevent a layup, I'd go with the intentional, but I'd have to be about 99% certain of his intent. I don't think the rules committee wanted us to turn contact that was previously incidental (zero impact on the opponent) into an intentional foul.

I could be wrong, though.

Agree.
They will only benefit 5 times. If these fouls are called, they will largely stop happening.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree.
They will only benefit 5 times. If these fouls are called, they will largely stop happening.

If you permit a team to commit a strategic foul whenever the opposing team is about to score an easy basket and only penalize it with a common foul, a smart coach will take that penalty everytime and continue to use the tactic.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you permit a team to commit a strategic foul whenever the opposing team is about to score an easy basket and only penalize it with a common foul, a smart coach will take that penalty everytime and continue to use the tactic.

I would argue that this is one place where you hold the whistle. That's not what the NFHS wants, likely.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If you permit a team to commit a strategic foul whenever the opposing team is about to score an easy basket and only penalize it with a common foul, a smart coach will take that penalty everytime and continue to use the tactic.

Perhaps...but if called early on and consistently, they'll get out of the habit and you will more easily recognize the strategic infractions when they occur and can more easily go to the next level of foul.

BTW, since you prefer correct grammar and spelling "everytime" is not a word. It is "every time" (two words).

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

I would say if you're going to call a play like that an IF - or F1 in a college game - Stevie Wonder better be able to see the defender's intent from the last row. As was said, the individual will only be able to do it five times plus the team will be giving up FTs fairly early. The cost-benefit probably isn't worth it.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I believe that a foul committed under those circumstances qualifies as an intentional personal foul. "Negates an opponent's obvious advantageous position ..."

Are YOU going to call it this way during the season?

And besides, don't a lot of fouls "Negate an opponent's obvious advantageous position?"

I think this is a riverdance on a slippery slope...