[Nevadaref]

1. Some people in this thread are incorrectly applying the second artilce of the fighting rule. Notice that it says "an unsporting act" which by NFHS definition is a non-contact foul. That is why the Case Book example is of a player taunting an opponent and inciting a punch.

2. Since the personal foul in this situation involves contact, it cannot fall under the purview of the second article of the fighting rule. We need to ajudge this foul on its own merits.

3. About five years ago the NCAA issued instruction to protect airborne players. They have no ability to protect themselves. Sort of like the NFL's defenseless player rule. Hard fouls from behind on breakaway layups and dunk attempts were used as examples in which the NCAA wanted FF2s called and a disqualification. I'm sure that johnnyd is viewing this video with that mentality.

4. This play may look worse because of how near the wall is to the playing court.

5. Is the personal foul of a violent or savage nature? It is certainly hard and dangerous, but it also isn't a kick, strike, or kneeing of the opponent. Could it be considered a tackle, which would be a violent act or is it just excessive contact? This is what we must determine in order to make the decision between IPF and FPF. I would like to see the NFHS add some language to the definition of a flagrant foul along the lines of "contact which endangers the safety of the opponent." I believe that the foul in the video clearly does that, but we don't currently have such verbiage. The more that I reflect upon this, I believe that the right decision is to declare this contact a tackle/takedown from behind of an airborne player and deem it a violent act which warrants assessing a flagrant personal foul.

6. The kick is clearly a FTF under NFHS rules.