Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin green
The simplest way to look at why there is no intentional flagrant foul is that the definitions don’t have it ... Each part of section 19 on fouls defines what a foul is... common, personal, flagrant, intentional, technical, multiple, double... etc. no definition for intentional flagrant. .... There are 14 fouls defined in the book. By definition a flagrant is a personal or technical foul ... I think everything else is describing what it is..
|
Thanks Kevin, you've pushed me close to the edge but not quite over the cliff.
I understand that we can't "willy-nilly" combine these various listed fouls together. Otherwise we could have a personal technical foul.
But we can have a personal flagrant foul, by combining personal and flagrant.
Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptor to the words intentional foul (other than personal or technical)? When we as officials on the floor, decide to upgrade a pushing personal foul to a pushing intentional personal foul that the pushing descriptor goes away, it just becomes a intentional personal foul, not a pushing intentional personal foul?
Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptor to the words flagrant foul (other than personal or technical)? When we as officials on the floor, decide to upgrade an excessive contact intentional personal foul to a excessive contact intentional flagrant personal foul that the excessive contact intentional descriptor goes away, it just becomes a flagrant personal foul, not an excessive contact intentional flagrant personal foul?
Are you saying that we can't attach any additional descriptors to the words flagrant foul, nor to the words intentional foul (other than personal or technical)?
Are you saying that if the definition doesn't include any sub-varieties of fouls that we should stay away from adding any descriptors?
Intentional fouls only list two sub-varieties, personal, or technical. Flagrant fouls only list two sub-varieties, personal, or technical. Are you saying that the NFHS wants us to only stick to those two sub-varieties for either type?
I feel myself going over the cliff.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this Kelvin green.
Answer my questions in this post, and I'm ready to admit that I was wrong.