Should Either Be Flagrant? (Video)

[xyrph]

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

Foul #1




Foul #2

[OrStBballRef]

No and no...

Shoot your FTs and move on

[just another ref]

Not even close.

[bob jenkins]

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

[OKREF]

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

[Mark Padgett]

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

[JRutledge]

Nope. Just clumsy basketball.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

+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!

[BlueDevilRef]

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


I wish I had a cool signature

[bballref3966]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[bainsey]

No and no.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[zm1283]

I have common fouls on both plays.