View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 05, 2007, 12:49pm
rainmaker rainmaker is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Once again, this brings up the issue of going to the NBA rule on flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 instead of using the term "intentional" for a flagrant foul that just wasn't quite flagrant enough to warrant an ejection. It just seems to make so much more sense to me to have that be the rule.

I guess that's the reason the NF doesn't do it.
It's the word "intentional" that really confuses everyone. I HATE that usage. The rest isn't so bad. Just change the vocabulary.
Reply With Quote