Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
And one of the big reasons it matters what you call, who shoots the free throws is totally different in a technical or a flagrant/intentional foul. So we have to understand the difference.
|
Agree. Also different throwin spots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge
... flagrant/intentional foul.
|
Not in my original situation, which was clearly technical (live ball, no contact), but in a different situation with live ball personal contact (i.e., hard push into the bleachers), why can't we describe the personal foul as a flagrant intentional personal foul, or a intentional flagrant personal foul?
Is it as simple as because the rules don't allow two different fouls for one illegal contact? The word intentional or flagrant isn't just an adjective modifier. One can't charge a flagrant
and intentional personal foul, or a intentional
and flagrant personal foul.
If the calling official comes up with the crossed arms signal, and then after consultation with his partner decides to also toss the offending player, has the foul been completely "changed", or just "upgraded" (upgrade meaning that the officials now want to also toss the offending player). With the exception of the tossing, the rest of the penalty would be the same for both (two free throws for offended player, ball at designated spot closest to the foul).
Maybe the answer to my questions is as simple as I stated above.
