|
As I re-read my post, I see that I came out troo strong on the flagrant side, without intending to be thee. I really did mean to say that you have to see it to call it. And, without having seen the fouls, I think that the first was probably more likely flagrant than the second. That one is possibly intentional, and also possibly common but hard. With the second, my only point was that if the first really was flagrant and called that way, the second is probably not as hard a foul.
But I strongly feel from the description of the first, without seeing it, that a two-handed shove into a wall on a layup at high speed is precisely the kind of foul they had in mind for flagrant. One like that should require no warning.
Jrut, the only point I really disagree with you on is your statement that a player must be trying to hurt another player. That requires intent, the rule clearly states that a flagrant foul "may or may not be intentional." It is a "violent or savage" foul. If you do have an intentional foul, and the player chooses to shove into the wall rather than grab or take out the arms to prevent a good shot, then that player could have made a violent or savage foul, and even intended to commit the foul.
|