Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkut
I don't think that is the case at all - what constitutes a flagrant technical is clearly a matter of judgement, is it not? So how could the rules not "warrant/support" such a call? I can certainly understand the argument that a flagrant is not necessary, but I don't think it is really that cut and dried.
A flagrant foul (technical) is one defined by rule as "displaying unacceptable behavior". I think accusing an official of cheating certainly can be argued to fall under that definition.
|
If you have to argue your point, your case is not very strong.
Flagrant Foul definition:
...may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing. If technical, it involved deadball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar, or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.
You can't get there in this case.
Additionally, nothing in 10.4 - 5 supports your case for flagrant.