Should Either Be Flagrant? (Video)
 

Same high school game, a couple minutes apart. Are either of these fouls flagrant? Thanks.

Foul #1

<iframe width="800" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/j7XUhikDclU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Foul #2

<iframe width="800" height="450" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hzatBZwH4LI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

No and no...

Shoot your FTs and move on

Not even close.

Not only is neither flagrant, neither is even intentional (depending, perhaps, on what else has happened in the game)

No chance. I thought we were going to see someone drove into the wall.

Neither foul was flagrant. However, because the defender's attempts really stunk, the fouls may be fragrant. :rolleyes:

Nope. Just clumsy basketball.

Peace

+1. These are hard fouls, but neither flagrant nor intentional. In the first clip, officials did a good job of closing down and making their presence known.

I also noted the scoreboard in the first clip. Tie game, 3 minutes left. To call an intentional foul here, even for the so-called criteria of "excessive" contact, would not be a good choice. I am in a unique position to render an opinion on the matter because.....well, let's just say you should take it from a guy who made this mistake in a camp game last summer and got a personal visit from the camp director in the aftermath. Good learning experience....but it hurt.

Shoot the free throws and move on, for the love of your advancement! :D

Seems like somebody should ask Santa for a rule explanation regarding flagrant fouls


I wish I had a cool signature

I don't disagree with you, but didn't you just recently get on another poster on a different thread for not being "humble" towards you?

Again, I don't disagree, and I've posted snarky things on this forum before, but it's a two-way street. If you want to be sarcastic and brash to other posters, then don't get mad when people direct it towards you.

Bob:

I think he was using the NCAA definitions: NFHS IPF = NCAA FF#1 and NFHS FPF = NCAA FF#2.

And I agree with everybody before me: No and no.

MTD, Sr.

No and no.

I could see either one of them being deemed intentional for excessive contact, but neither is flagrant (a violent or savage act).

We could have a nice debate on whether or not these should be intentional fouls.

In the first one I can't tell what the shorter player in white does. It is actually 32 white that hits shooters arm. Hard foul but not intentional to me. I can't tell if shorter white player gave her blatant shove. From what I see, no intentional on it.

Number two- I could easily see intentional foul. Again, white 32, just wails at shooters arms. If she hits a lot of ball, not intentional. If she swings this hard and isn't near the ball I could call intentional. Looked like her mind was made up to swing as hard as she could. Looks like she could use an intentional.

I have common fouls on both plays.

Only if your daughter plays for the team being fouled.

No, and no, but white #32 is a defensive liability due to her lack of body control.

Curious why you asked if they should be flagrant and not intentional.

First play was kinda almost maybe a block. Think first contact is ball and most of the impact is probably from the offensive player jumping up.

Second I'm not seeing very well, but the defense just jumps at a stupid time and makes the best of the situation by swiping at the ball.

I'd be hard pressed to call an intentional on either of these stand alone plays.

Are we watching the same clip? Both refs who should have been getting in there are not doing so. The Lead is only sticking around because he can't seem to locate the right number. The C (who inexplicably had a whistle despite the play being in Lead's lap and having two players between him and the foul) isn't getting in there either. Hanging back and watching the players to make sure they behave is not the best thing to do here. The only dude who seems interested in getting in there is the freaking Trail!! Lead needs to be right there and let his presence be known with C right behind. That leaves Trail to hang back and observe the whole group of players.

I could see either of these as intentional based on excessive/WIF contact. Sure it's clumsy and perhaps not deliberate but those are not our criteria.

#1: absolutely no consideration as an IF. Post foul action is adequately covered by officials as there is no threat of escalation. Fouler walks away and her teammate comes over to help opponent up.

#2: Wind up by fouler would give me pause to at least consider an IF based on the context of the game.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

When In Rome ...
 

It's probably just a local thing, but here in Connecticut, the term hard foul is interchangeable with an intentional foul for excessive contact. Some officials will actually report "intentional hard foul" instead of "intentional excessive contact" while using the unauthorized intentional foul excessive contact signal.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7756/1...cfc19d22_m.jpg

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

So you have wind-up in the second play but not the first? I see it in both.

#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?

I wouldn't have a preliminary signal here, either.

@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.

Prelims, though technically required in the manual, are inherently a local preference, or sometimes a preference of the individual official when he/she feels some "on-the-spot" information is advisable.

See how many preliminary signals you see when watching NCAA BB on TV. You don't see too many.

Likewise in HS, you won't see too many unless locally expected. When I worked in KS, the state coordinator wanted them, so we used them. Sounds like that's the case in AZ as well. But I would say in most places they are not strictly mandated.

Not every state follows NFHS Mechanics. So it is possible that no one cares about this the way you would at the location of this video. We are also required or asked to give a preliminary signal at the spot, but many times it is not done. It is really not a big deal IMO.

Peace

We are required to give a preliminary signal at the spot of the foul. I'm so used to it now I don't even think about it. The only one I really don't like doing is the "hit" signal (I think it's illegal use of the hands). It just feels awkward doing it at the spot of the foul, but I do what I'm told.

The problem with NFHS signals is that there are several fouls that I think are hard to convey with their limited signal chart. I wish we were given more freedom to signal but I can see why they don't want officials making up their own stuff on their own.

The NCAA manual is not the same as the NFHS manual. As a general statement (and subject to all the "when in rome" caveats already mentioned), NCAA does not require preliminary signals nearly as often as NFHS.

There are places where such things are not strictly mandated.

#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.

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.

Context ???
 

#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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.