Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
|
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
|
Assuming this was rightly called an intentional personal foul . . . too hard.
(If the additional property 'flagrant' were added, player tossed.)
|
You can't add any additional properties to an intentional personal foul. You can call this an intentional personal foul. You could also call it a flagrant personal foul if it was judged to meet that rules definition. There is no no such foul called an flagrant intentional personal foul though.
|
Well, ... is an unintentional flagrant foul incidental contact?
|
Flagrant incidental contact?
You can go to jail for that. 
|
Yes and no. Conceptually, flagrancy is a property added. The rules takes the approach of saying, in effect, a foul is some particular set of preperties - without organizing them in a hierachry. It's a LOT easier to grasp them in a hierarchy. I have done one for some of the officials I assign and it worked the bomb. [/B]
|
Yup, and if you take away your bafflegab, the fact still remains that if you add different properties to a certain type of foul, then that foul becomes a completely different type of foul. When you add the properties laid out in R4-19-3 to a common personal foul, then that foul somehow magically turns into something completely different- to wit, an intentional personal foul. If you add the properties of "violence" or "the intent to injure" to a common personal foul or an intentional personal foul, then those fouls also magically morph into something completely different also--called a flagrant personal foul. And please note that none of those "different" types of fouls is something called an "intentional flagrant personal foul". There ain't no such animal. [/B][/QUOTE]
If a dog has four legs and you call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have?