Quote:
Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Quote:
Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal
I think you have the right idea but would the foul on the shooter be a flagrant technical or a flagrant intentional?
|
Ralph.
Ain't no such thing as a "flagrant intentional." Check the long thread about the new "swinging elbows violation signal" for a full discussion.
|
Mark, check rule 4-19-4. It explains that a flagrant foul "may or may not be intentional." I was in a freshman boys game a couple years ago where, in a hotly contested game, a player was going for a fastbreak layup and while airborne, the opponent closing in fast, dropped his head and shoulders and upended the shooter landing him on his head. We naturally tossed the player. We didn't use any verbage but it was obviously intentional and flagrant.
As far as the above thread goes, as I understand the rule, whenever you have an intentional foul on a shooter, if the shot was not good, then the 2 or in this case 3 shots would be taken and then they get the ball back. In other words, you don't shoot the normal 2 shots for the intentional. If the basket had been good, then the shooter would get 2 shots and the ball back for an intentional foul. So, in the above situation, if you called the foul on the shooter an intentional instead of a technical, he would get his 3 shots rather than just get the 2 for the tech.
[Edited by Ralph Stubenthal on Aug 4th, 2002 at 11:30 AM]