Intentional fouls

[tornado]

I have seen more called already this year than probably the past couple years combined...
One was called in both the BU game and the ISU game over the weekend...

and did anyone else see this one??? An intentional and apparently flagrant trip of a player by Derek Elston -- that many think he should have been ejected for but instead was called a simple intentional foul...

http://blogs.heraldtimesonline.com/iusp/?p=12234

[lefty]

I think he should have been ejected. If a ref sees that I don't know he doesn't eject the guy....he must be related to the guy for the Jets...

Many thought Tisdale intentional foul against Missouri was weak, especially during that time of the game but it was right call.

[tornado]

lefty -- the act by Tisdale WAS to defend against a score and WAS NOT for the purpose of hurting or upending the player.
The act in this video by Elston had NOTHING to do with playing defense and WAS clearly for the purpose of upending the player..

So I see those two fouls as diametric opposites...
I think Elston should have been ejected but I think Tisdale was playing defense while intending no harm, and so it should have only been a simple foul...just IMHO

[lefty]

lefty -- the act by Tisdale WAS to defend against a score and WAS NOT for the purpose of hurting or upending the player.
The act in this video by Elston had NOTHING to do with playing defense and WAS clearly for the purpose of upending the player..

So I see those two fouls as diametric opposites...
I think Elston should have been ejected but I think Tisdale was playing defense while intending no harm, and so it should have only been a simple foul...just IMHO

I agree they were two seperate type of foul. Just about any time when you come from behind and put hands on the back of a player going in for a layup with no play on the ball it's going to be an intentional foul...

Elston should have been ejected

I question about Tis playing defense.......no reason for him to be beat on that break. All the Illini took that play off in my opinion.

[wily coyote]

I agree they were two seperate type of foul. Just about any time when you come from behind and put hands on the back of a player going in for a layup with no play on the ball it's going to be an intentional foul...

Elston should have been ejected

I question about Tis playing defense.......no reason for him to be beat on that break. All the Illini took that play off in my opinion.

Lefty, you are 100% CORRECT.The call against Tisdale will ALWAYS be deemed intentional for the very reason you say. Tisdale was making no attempt to get the ball and the rule states you must make an attempt to get the ball. A Two hand push in the middle of the back when you are trailing the ball handler will always be ruled intentional if it to called correctly.

[tornado]

..the rule states you must make an attempt to get the ball. ....

hmm...while I don't deny that any such call by a ref is a judgement call, and that if you grab the player with intent to foul -you run the risk of getting an intentional foul called...
But there are many, many times near the end of a game where a "defender" grabs a player on purpose to commit a foul and stop the clock to put the shooter on the line and get possession back...
...and it is NOT called intentional -- in fact it happens in virtually every close game ever played!!

BUT -- clearly no such rule requires that if you defend a player that you MUST make an attempt to get the ball..
..you can also guard or "PLAY a player" legally without going for the ball...(see the rule below)

so it's what you do with the player not what you do with the ball that determines if your act is illegal...there is NO requirement that you MUST play the ball,
only that "you must play either the ball or the player"

99% of players playing defense make NO attempt to "get the ball" because that would enhance your chances of contact and getting a foul called.
Most players playing defense simply guard the player and make NO ATTEMPT to get the ball.

By the way, the precise rules say it is perfectly legal to guard a player who doesn't even have the ball...so obviously making an "attempt to get the ball" is impossible whenever you are guarding your man and he doesn't have the ball.

The precise rules are as follows...
and the part that Tisdale violated is Section 4, Part b.

http://ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf

(Rule 10: Fouls and Penalties begins on page 123)

The section titled "Intentional Personal Fouling" begins on page 147...

"Section 4. Intentional Personal Fouling
Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:
a. Any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball
or a player is an intentional personal foul.
b. Running into the back of a player who has the ball, wrapping the arm(s)
around a player and grabbing a player around the torso or legs are
intentional personal fouls.
c. Grabbing a player’s arm or body while initially attempting to gain
control by playing the ball directly is an intentional personal foul.
d. Grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an
intentional personal foul.
e. Undue roughness used to stop the game clock is an intentional personal
foul and, if severe, should be called a flagrant personal foul.
f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.
The intentional personal foul must be called within the spirit and
intent of the intentional-foul rule."

..one addition to the explanation elsewhere in the rules adds..."Contact that is..specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting"
--which also fits the Tisdale scenario but then also describes numerous near-end-game fouls that are NOT called intentional..so it's really pretty much the refs judgement!



note-- interestingly the rules on what constitutes a foul differ between Men's rules and Women's rules..
and the rules for a flagrant foul require that the act be "flagrant" - a term the NCAA uses to imply BOTH "intentional",
PLUS "involves severe contact with an opponent or involves contact that is extreme in nature while the ball is live"
A "flagrant technical" is even different, an act that doesn't even involve playing the game such as dead ball contact or fighting, or
"extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct"

If flagrant it requires ejection of the offending player.

[lefty]

Intentional fouling at the end of the game when the ball is thrown in doesn't result in 2 ft's and ball out unless it's in a ref's judgement that it was flagrant....but again when a player is going for a layup full blast and gets hands in the back, it could be dangerous to the shooter.

I think most all the refs do a pretty good job of determining the difference.

one addition to the explanation elsewhere in the rules adds..."Contact that is..specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting"
--which also fits the Tisdale scenario but then also describes numerous near-end-game fouls that are NOT called intentional..so it's really pretty much the refs judgement!


It didn't seem to me that this fit Tisdale's situation. The clock was going and by the time Tisdale has his hands on his bacl he was shooting the layup...which when made stops the clock anyway...

I agree...when you look at a through f.....it's all based on judgement by refs....

[wily coyote]

hmm...while I don't deny that any such call by a ref is a judgement call, and that if you grab the player with intent to foul -you run the risk of getting an intentional foul called...
But there are many, many times near the end of a game where a "defender" grabs a player on purpose to commit a foul and stop the clock to put the shooter on the line and get possession back...
...and it is NOT called intentional -- in fact it happens in virtually every close game ever played!!

BUT -- clearly no such rule requires that if you defend a player that you MUST make an attempt to get the ball..
..you can also guard or "PLAY a player" legally without going for the ball...(see the rule below)

so it's what you do with the player not what you do with the ball that determines if your act is illegal...there is NO requirement that you MUST play the ball,
only that "you must play either the ball or the player"

99% of players playing defense make NO attempt to "get the ball" because that would enhance your chances of contact and getting a foul called.
Most players playing defense simply guard the player and make NO ATTEMPT to get the ball.

By the way, the precise rules say it is perfectly legal to guard a player who doesn't even have the ball...so obviously making an "attempt to get the ball" is impossible whenever you are guarding your man and he doesn't have the ball.

The precise rules are as follows...
and the part that Tisdale violated is Section 4, Part b.

http://ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf

(Rule 10: Fouls and Penalties begins on page 123)

The section titled "Intentional Personal Fouling" begins on page 147...

"Section 4. Intentional Personal Fouling
Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:
a. Any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball
or a player is an intentional personal foul.
b. Running into the back of a player who has the ball, wrapping the arm(s)
around a player and grabbing a player around the torso or legs are
intentional personal fouls.
c. Grabbing a player??™s arm or body while initially attempting to gain
control by playing the ball directly is an intentional personal foul.
d. Grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an
intentional personal foul.
e. Undue roughness used to stop the game clock is an intentional personal
foul and, if severe, should be called a flagrant personal foul.
f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.
The intentional personal foul must be called within the spirit and
intent of the intentional-foul rule."

..one addition to the explanation elsewhere in the rules adds..."Contact that is..specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting"
--which also fits the Tisdale scenario but then also describes numerous near-end-game fouls that are NOT called intentional..so it's really pretty much the refs judgement!



note-- interestingly the rules on what constitutes a foul differ between Men's rules and Women's rules..
and the rules for a flagrant foul require that the act be "flagrant" - a term the NCAA uses to imply BOTH "intentional",
PLUS "involves severe contact with an opponent or involves contact that is extreme in nature while the ball is live"
A "flagrant technical" is even different, an act that doesn't even involve playing the game such as dead ball contact or fighting, or
"extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct"

If flagrant it requires ejection of the offending player.

You know T I'm not really sure how to get you to understand what happened in the Tisdale case the other night. My statement that "you must make an attempt for the ball" still stands and I agree it is only one part of the rule albeit an important one. Go to your part of the rule book Section 4 part a.) it tells you exactly what Tisdale did to get the intentional foul from the referee and it was a text book example of when an intentional foul should be called. That was a no brainer and should be called the exact way it was everytime it happens that way.
There are alot of different ways to get an intentional foul called on a player but I was trying to point out the example we were talking about was most certainly called correctly. I do agree with you that it is a judgement call as is every whistle and there are many intentional fouls that do not get called,mostly late in a game but to split hairs with words doesn't make sense in this situation. The reason Tisdale was called for his intentional foul was because he was not making an attempt to play the ball. See your section 4 part a.)

[tornado]

not playing the ball is part of the Tisdale situation..but wrapping his arms around the guy and trying to foul on purpose to stop the clock is a bigger portion of what got Tis the foul...

but for you to cite that the rule says you MUST play the ball is quite in error..and I stand by my other post..

[wily coyote]

not playing the ball is part of the Tisdale situation..but wrapping his arms around the guy and trying to foul on purpose to stop the clock is a bigger portion of what got Tis the foul...

but for you to cite that the rule says you MUST play the ball is quite in error..and I stand by my other post..

You are right and saying you Must play the ball is not correct but in that situation it was right. It is not correct in all intentional fouls as you so correctly pointed out. Again I was just refering to the Tisdale situation. You need to review the film again.He did NOT wrap his arms around Tisdale. He pushed him in the middle of the back and made ZERO, NO ATTEMPT to play the ball. Period for the last time please understand I agree there are many ways to have an intentional foul and the interpertation I gave was just one of the many ways.