|
Judging from the diescription, I think intentional does the job. You don't see a lot of intentionals, so it stands out as a call much more than the common foul. The intentional makes it clear to both teams, coaches, and particularly the offending player, that you saw what happened and you won't tolerate it, and you are going to penalize it if it occurs. I think that is sufficient to keep things from escalating.
Comparisons to the Twolves game are completely inappropriate here - the rules on flagrant and intentional fouls are very different in the NBA, as is the sophistication and rules knowledge of the players. At this level, I don't think there are many players that know the difference between an intentional and a flagrant. But they will take notice when you call the intentional, and the offended team will appreciate it.
I think the flagrant is a little much, especially since you didn't start out with so much as an intentional foul. If there was so little contact that the player being fouled may not have even known it, I think you can consider it sufficient to give the intentional.
|