Should Either Be Flagrant? (Video)

[Rich]

There are places where such things are not strictly mandated.

[Camron Rust]

#1. Not flagrant. Not even intentional.

#2. Not flagrant, but I would lean towards intentional due to excessive contact depending on how the game was going. If there was a pattern of such rough fouls, I would have already advised the players to clean it up. If I had done that, I'd have no trouble going intentional on this.

[ODog]

Around here, nobody gives a preliminary signal on shooting fouls, and it's even somewhat frowned upon to throw up the two fingers in situations where we're obviously going to be shooting (like these two scenarios).

Preliminary signals only occur on fouls that will not result in free throws.

Oh, and ...

NO and NO.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Dad

Are you calling an intentional on either/both of these plays?

#1 Not flagrant, not intentional, just an in the act of shooting foul.

#2 Not flagrant, maybe an intentional foul for excessive contact (hard foul), or, if not, an in the act of shooting foul.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by SAK

#1- Depending on how the game has gone this might be a no call as the defender hit ball first then body, making the contact incidental. It was not even a hard foul. Seemed to be just some bad basketball.

#2- This one is a foul no question about that. It is however only a block. No need to think twice about it. Not even necessary to have a conversation about it, yes it is a hard foul but the was nothing excessive or malicious about this foul.

On another note, what is the deal with the mechanics. I did not see any preliminary signals on either foul and did not see any communication on the double whistle. How does anyone know that there was not a multiple foul or which defender the foul was being called on?

When a defender hits ball first, subsequent contact may be incidental but it is not an absolute. White 32 follow through seemed to me to make pretty solid contact with shooter. There has to be a call there--video 1 im talking about. It isnt flagrant or intentional but it is a foul. That's my opinion and wanted you to know...thx

[constable]

Originally Posted by SAK

@Rich

Why not is that not required by NFHS in the mechanics manual. It is possible that its not but living in Arizona we are required to give a prelim.

Preliminary signals are off little use when the foul is obvious.

FIBA is on to something with their approach- only block/charge, unsporting( intentional) or T's have a preliminary signal.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ODog

Around here, nobody gives a preliminary signal on shooting fouls, and it's even somewhat frowned upon to throw up the two fingers in situations where we're obviously going to be shooting (like these two scenarios).

Preliminary signals only occur on fouls that will not result in free throws.

Oh, and ...

NO and NO.

I can see the prelim on obvious fouls, but I've seen too many cluster farks caused by failed communication. Even if I don't throw up two fingers, I'm telling my partner who the shooter is.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by ODog

Around here, nobody gives a preliminary signal on shooting fouls, and it's even somewhat frowned upon to throw up the two fingers in situations where we're obviously going to be shooting (like these two scenarios).

Preliminary signals only occur on fouls that will not result in free throws.

Oh, and ...

NO and NO.

Can you explain this?

It shouldn't be obvious to all three officials that you're going to be shooting. Why would communication be frowned upon?

[SaccoVanzetti]

First common.
Second. hmm, I would want to know what occurred before if that defender has been doing hard fouls. I think I would go with intentional but not really a problem if a common foul is called.