Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I don't agree that the intentional is a bail-out. If it is clearly flagrant, call it such. I have no problem with that concept. I see uncertainty in this situation, and flagrant better be a certainty typoe of call.
I have a player with a temper, and remove her from games when necessary. We talk about it, she has gotten much better, but her first reaction is to lash out when "bad stuff" happens. I have pulled her three times in the past three weekends, never once has she even gotten an intentional foul called. Usually she is po'd because the ball got stolen or she got hammered on a no-call when taking a lay-up. But she gets a mean look and chases down the player that ends up with the ball. And she will get the ball, but she always takes a piece of player too.
Last weekend, an official that was watching told the on-court crew they should have had an intentional. I benched her for the rest of the half. She hamnmered A1, who had stolen the ball from her, coming hard down on her upper body as she took a lay-up. No way she was playing just the ball. Player went down hard, common foul. In my mind, that foul needs a flagrant long before the one juulie posted on, and it isn't even an INT.
|
I'm not saying that more intentional fouls should not be called. I'm saying, and I can't say it any more clearly, if a player strikes another player or attempts to strike another player that player has committed a flagrant foul.
It does not matter if a common foul may have had more contact. You throw a punch and you are gone.
Like I said earlier you can have a common foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant on that layup coach and the official has to judge which kind of foul occured. There is no such distinction on a punch. Punch = fight = ejection.