Quote:
Originally Posted by Juulie Downs
A contact foul during a live ball is always going to be shot (if there are shots) by the person who takes the foul. If it's a foul to neutralize an obvious advantage, or if it's excessive contact, it's an intentional, two shots and the ball at the point nearest the foul, regardless of the time in the game, or point in the action. If it's violent or savage in nature, it's flagrant, same as intentional, but with the fouling player being ejected.
So really, in effect, during a live ball, a flagrant is intentional+ejection, we just don't use the words Flagrant+Intentional, and don't signal with the crossed arms. Right?
|
Wrong.
An intentional foul is never flagrant in nature. If it was, it wouldn't be an intentional foul, it would be a flagrant foul.
Rule 4-19-4 referencing flagrant fouls says that "it may or may not be intentional". "Intentional" in that sentence means that the action may or may not be deliberate in nature. It has nothing to do with it being an "intentional foul". It was just a poor choice of words to describe the acts.
You can have excessive contact with both intentional and flagrant fouls. You have to judge the type of excessive contact before you decide whether the foul should be "intentional" or "flagrant". As the rules state, if the contact is violent, savage or you felt the intent was to injure, you call it "flagrant". It is always a judgment call.
A flagrant foul is ejection. Period. An intentional foul isn't. They're separate fouls defined under separate rules.
Forget about intentional when thinking "flagrant".