MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[bulldogalum]

That is, in fact, a point of emphasis for refs this year.  In the Oakland exhibition, Ian Weber was called for an intentional foul on a similar play, and in a situation which I would never consider to be an intentional foul.  After the game, I asked around, and was told that it was a point of emphasis.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

That is, in fact, a point of emphasis for refs this year.  In the Oakland exhibition, Ian Weber was called for an intentional foul on a similar play, and in a situation which I would never consider to be an intentional foul.  After the game, I asked around, and was told that it was a point of emphasis.

Even if that is a point of emphasis I don't understand what makes that play an "intentional foul" as that phrase has been used forever basically. Its a good fake that leads to a foul. If every time someone gets a good fake that leads to a foul are we going to call them intentional now? I disagree with this interpretation of the rules.

[academy1]

Concerning the Kalamazoo/Witt game on Saturday, I would echo much of PickNRoll's comments and add a few more.  This was a game K could have won.  This was not the same Witt team we are used to seeing but still a pretty solid squad.  

Kellogg and McCain were pretty strong inside but need to be able to stay out of foul trouble.  Hopefully they can continue to learn how to play hard without fouling.  Both of their fifth fouls were on plays away from the hoop on a blocking foul and an over-the back call.  Hopefully one of the other freshman can step up but it seems like it will be a year before one of them can really step up, when they can put on a little weight.

Defensively they struggled containing Witt's PG all night long.  The kid was a real solid shooter and took it to the basket pretty nice as well.  Other than that it's tough to ask some of the undersized post players from covering bigger players.  They did a pretty good job considerating the size disadvantage.  Problem is, the issue won't change this season.

Offensively, K struggled at times when McCain left the game.  Hopefully some of the jump shooters find their rhythm sooner than later.  With their feet set, the Hornets were knocking down outside shots consistently, unfortunately I saw too many unrhythmic forces.  Jerome did a nice job getting to the hoop and finishing.  It's much easier shooting 3's inside/our rather than a pass from the perimeter.  

One thing I didn't see was the intensity and focus that's needed to win.  The guys played hard but were a step late on the back side help, gap help, and loose balls.  K's not going to out-talent too many teams but needs to do all the little things to get the W.  Things aren't going to get easier this week with a trip to Grand Valley, who knocked off MSU a few weeks back.  

[sac]

I'm not sure if this really is the right link to explain the intentional foul calls on fakes, but it might explain some future problems with post play foul calls.

(warning .pdf file)
http://www1.ncaa.org/eprise/main/playingrules/mbasketball/10-18LowPostGuidelines.pdf?ObjectID=44688&ViewMode=0&PreviewState=0

I believe calling these plays intentional is just a way to try and protect a player from injury.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

Sac, You beat me to it. I was looking up the NCAA definition of an "intentional foul" while you posted. The NCAA has 6 defintions (a-f) for an intentional foul. It begins on p. 146 of the pdf file that I am linking to http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2008/2008_m_w_basketball_rules.pdf

I think definitions a and f are relevant.

Definition "a" states "any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player is an intentional personal foul." The rule also states that "The intentional personal foul MUST be called within the spirit and intent of the intentional foul rule." (Emphasis mine).

I don't see how the calls we are discussing could possibly fall within this definition. Any player going up following a good fake is making a legitimate attempt at the ball at the time they leave their feet. Unless the play then turns dangerous or the player in the air does more than just come down on the player I don't think the spirit of the rule, especially considering the way the rule has been called the last 20 years, justifies an intentional foul.

Definition "f" is probably where the NCAA is coming from, it states, "It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player causes excessive contact with an opponent."

Although I think there is a stronger argument under this definition the fact is I do not believe a player that gets faked out and goes up, which in turn causes them to come down on the player is causing "excessive" contact. They are causing normal contact in that play and it is the intention of the offensive player to cause that contact typically. Moreover, considering the history of the way the game has been called and the directive that the spirit of the rule Must be taken into consideration I believe this point of emphasis is an incorrect interpretation of the rules by whoever sent down the directive that this would be a point of emphasis.

Granted I've probably never seen a call I didn't like anyways

Ok, I am off my soap box.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'll wade in with support for DCHN.  Unless the 'faked-out' player comes down with grabbing beyond the instinctual desire to break his own fall, I just can't see how by any rational interpretation of 'intentional' this can be called that way.  I understand the desire to protect the player who got landed on, but 'intentional' seems the wrong remedy.

[KnightSlappy]

That is, in fact, a point of emphasis for refs this year.  In the Oakland exhibition, Ian Weber was called for an intentional foul on a similar play, and in a situation which I would never consider to be an intentional foul.  After the game, I asked around, and was told that it was a point of emphasis.

Even if that is a point of emphasis I don't understand what makes that play an "intentional foul" as that phrase has been used forever basically. Its a good fake that leads to a foul. If every time someone gets a good fake that leads to a foul are we going to call them intentional now? I disagree with this interpretation of the rules.

If you go straight up then you don't have to worry about an intentional foul call.

[Gregory Sager]

I was at Saturday night's Kalamazoo vs. Wittenberg game as well. Given the way that Wheaton had smacked around the Hornets the night before, when Witt got up 27-9 two-thirds of the way through the first half I figured that I could just continue with my conversation with the Wheaton coaches and ignore the ballgame. It didn't work out that way, as the Hornets chipped away at that big lead and then hung around for almost the entire game -- they even got within four with five minutes left. Some of that was due to Kalamazoo's admirable no-quit attitude, but unfortunately a lot of it was due to the much-more-talented Tigers not going for the stomp when they had their foot on Kalamazoo's throat. Wittenberg is a young team, and young teams often don't understand the necessity of turning it up a notch when they open up a big early lead, in order to eliminate the will of the opponent.

Kalamazoo doesn't have much in the way of talent, but Kellogg, Clancy, and McCain are competent enough players to keep the Hornets competitive against most mid-level D3 teams if, as academy1 said, the team as a whole does all the little things well. The Hornets didn't, and that's why they couldn't get over the hump against an inexperienced team that allowed them to stay in the ballgame. Still, kudos to the Hornets for a solid effort.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I'll wade in with support for DCHN.  Unless the 'faked-out' player comes down with grabbing beyond the instinctual desire to break his own fall, I just can't see how by any rational interpretation of 'intentional' this can be called that way.  I understand the desire to protect the player who got landed on, but 'intentional' seems the wrong remedy.

I agree - and while I understand the need to protect the player who provided the fake, it is often the one committing this kind of foul who gets hurt. 

[realist]

I think I have to side with KS on the intentional ruling.  If the defender goes straight up, and comes straight down they don't make contact (no foul).  By definition if you land on the offensive player you either didn't go straight up or the offensive player moved under you to cause the contact, and they should be called for that.  Like most calls a key thing is going to be if the refs. call it the same way on both ends of the floor.

[bulldogalum]

I think we're wandering too far down this road toward protection.  The way it's going, we're not far from being to the point we're at in football, where in certain instances, it's a 15 yard penalty to look at a quarterback the wrong way.

Bottom line, if you are clearly going for the ball, and especially if you actually get a piece of the ball, there are very very few situations where an intentional foul should be called.  The notion of staying straight up is delightful in a vacuum, but in reality people commit fouls in every game, even Knights.  It's part of the game, and so long as the player is committing the foul in an attempt to make a good play, he should not be penalized with an intentional foul.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

alum - very well said.  +k from me

[realist]

Basketball generally is considered to be more of a finesse sport than a full contact sport.   A ref. is always confronted with the decison who initiated the contact, and then was the intent to go for the ball or the other player.  A player doubled over (or bent over, crouching) protecting the ball, with a person landing on their back it is hard to argue the defender was going for the ball.    
This is a subjective call on the refs. part, and a split second decision to top it off.  IMHO this is the perfect type of situation, and call for a ref. to make if they feel/think a game is getting to rough or physical.  Would you rather wait until your star is writhing on the floor in pain before the ref. steps in?  Teach the defender to go straight up, or avoid going for the fake.  Jump onto/into another player (with the ball) and you might just deserve this call.  

[Flying Dutch Fan]

realist - I don't think you're living up to your name on this one (at least not in my opinion - let me explain). 

When is the last time you can honestly say you saw a defender go straight up?  Basketball is a game of motion, and both the offensive and defensive players are both going to be moving laterally 99.99% of the time. 

So let's say a defender jumps in the air to block a shot (whether real or just a good fake).  Once said player has left the floor, he has very little control over where he lands or how quickly he lands - those are just the laws of physics.  His intentions were (in most cases) to either block the shot, or at least alter it.  His intentions were not to hurt the other player, or to stop him from scoring at all costs (again in most cases).  If that's true, then how is that foul intentional?

[almcguirejr]

Grace Bible was called for 2 intentional fouls Friday night.  Both times the defenders were trying to recover defensively, both times the Calvin player gave a good head fake that got the defenders in the air with their momentum carrying them forward.  I thought both defenders were going for the ball and these were not intentional fouls.