What is the basis for judging an intentional foul?

Judging an intentional foul fundamentally revolves around the severity of the act committed by the player. Intentional fouls are typically characterized by actions that clearly indicate a purposeful violation of the rules rather than an incidental or accidental contact. Referees assess various factors such as the nature of the foul, whether it interrupts a player’s scoring opportunity, or if it is done in a manner that shows a disregard for the opponent's safety.

In this context, the severity of the act plays a crucial role because it helps officials determine whether the foul was premeditated and egregious enough to warrant classification as intentional. Lesser actions that do not exhibit significant severity are often ruled as common fouls instead.

While a player's intent to harm may seem relevant, the rules focus more on the act itself and its implications rather than the psychological state of the player. Similarly, the reactions of players involved or the referee's personal discretion can vary but should not be the sole criteria for judging the nature of a foul. The emphasis is more aligned with how serious the foul was and how it affects the game, hence why assessing the severity of the act is the correct basis for judging an intentional foul.