Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Are these the conflicting citations?
Two free throws if intentional or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in.
4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.
Please let there be more to it than that, otherwise I'm going with 4-19-4 over the other one, and yet, I still feel that I'm wrong, and still need that little push.
If I'm presented with this situation on a written test, I want to get it right and be able to offer more of an explanation than, "Because bob jenkins, and JRutledge, and I, said so".
|
Much ado about nothing. If the NFHS rules terminology causes confusion, I would advocate a change to either international practice in referring to deliberate and unsporting fouls as "unsporting" if without an ejection, or "disqualifying" if the offender is ejected, or to NCAA/NBA practice in calling them Flagrant 1/Flagrant 2 fouls, to avoid this issue.
Note: in Europe, where FIBA terminology was developed, a player who has fouled out is "excluded", not disqualified from the game (removed from the game, but not the premises; no additional penalties) as in the States. This is why the FIBA rulebook uses "disqualify" in the sense of "eject" (remove from the game and premises + additional penalties). Therefore, disqualifying foul can be used without confusion if this convention is followed. Otherwise, use unsportIng and ejection foul.