[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach:
[b]I am confused at what Mark's issue is. NF allows for intentional fouls, two shots plus ball, and flagrant fouls, two shots, ball and ejection. If you have intentional foul and you don't think its bad enough to warrant ejection, it is intentional only. If you think it crosses the line, it is flagrant. I am sure I am missing somehting here because Mark always has an angle that I haven't considered
The "angle" here is that I think we should call a foul intentional only if there was intent to gain an advantage, like stopping the clock when behind. But if a player is going for the ball, does a bad job of it and uses excessive force, there was no intent to foul to gain an advantage so this (assuming the contact was REALLY hard) should be called a flagrant level one. If there was incredibly excessive force and/or an intent to injure, then it should be a flagrant level two, just like in the NBA.
The penalty for a flagrant level one would be exactly the same as it is now for an intentional foul. I'm not lobbying for a change in the penalty for this type of foul, just to use proper terminology. I have had coaches question the intentional call when a player was going for the ball but knocked over the ball handler in doing so. Explaining it as a lower level flagrant seems to make much more sense.
As to you having a better angle than me, maybe you'd like the angle better from the parking lot, buddy.
[This message has been edited by Mark Padgett (edited July 26, 2000).]