Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Thinking back, I suppose it should have been a flagrant, but it was such a sissy-hit, so namby-pamby, I still can't feel I goofed.
|
Juulie - as we both know, a "sissy-hit, so namby-pamby" could easily be as flagrant as that girl could hit. Certainly there was intent to injure, even if the hit didn't hurt. That's why we even call flagrants if a swing is taken but misses.
Under NF rules, her action was flagrant in my book.
Perhaps it's time the NF adopted the NBA rule about having two different levels of flagrant fouls. One results in ejection, the other doesn't. Then we wouldn't have to make "intentional" fouls take the place of lower level flagrants just because we make a subjective decision that the foul didn't warrant ejection.