Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Camron, I think that you really, really should talk to a rules interpreter out there about your premise. The above pretty much sums up where you're coming from, and it's so far wrong, it's ridiculous. If it were true, why would 4-18-1 contain the words "regardless of whether contact is made"?
I ain't gonna convince you- fer sure- so we're just gonna haveta disagree.
Btw, after viewing that video, what would you call?
|
Funny how it's always the other person that needs to talk to a rules interpreter..............
So, from JR's previous posts this is what he's saying.........
Player A1 grabs the back of player B1 jersey running up the court.
1) JR has an intentional personal foul on A1. B1 turns and looks at A1
but does nothing.
2) JR has an intentional personal foul on A1. B1 turns and takes a swing
at A1. JR now changes that personal foul to a flagrant on A1 because
B1 retaliates with fighting, and A1 was the instigator.
So how can the same action by A1 result in different calls?? Just by the reaction of B1?? Don't think so. A flagrant foul is for fouls of violent or savage in nature. Grabbing the back of one's jersey does not qualify, neither does the elbow/push.
I don't believe the FED is into punishing A1 for B1's uncontrollable actions.