Quote:
Originally posted by tomegun
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
I think a better compromise might have been to call it intentional. That way you get the message across, without having to deal with an ejection.
|
While I understand your thinking, this seems like a way to avoid getting "dirty." If the play warrants a flagrant foul, shouldn't the flagrant foul be called? One thing I can't understand is a need to get a message across. Can you explain that theory a little more?
If a player/coach/fan/observer knows the rules of a flagrant or intentional foul and the proper foul is avoided, this could open up a whole new can of worms. In the end, we could very easily understand and agree on this, but those two sentences alone caused a "huh." [/B]
|
Tom -- The original post implied that the foul was too rough for an ordinary PC, but maybe not quite flagrant. The description sounded to me like it might not really be flagrant. When a foul is flagrant, call it flagrant!! I'm not saying we should avoid the proper call. But it sounded from the post as though the ref hesitated to call it flagrant because it really wasn't but he wanted something a little more punitive than an ordinary PC. I'm saying that the "in-between" fouls have an "inbetween" penalty -- the intentional.