HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I do not have these as offsetting.

Ok. Thanks! Offsetting would be only if they actually happen at the same time....got it.


I wish I had a cool signature

[deecee]

My OP was to see on the first action if you would have a flagrant OR int, and on the second part if you would have a run of the mill T or flagrant.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by deecee

My OP was to see on the first action if you would have a flagrant OR int, and on the second part if you would have a run of the mill T or flagrant.

First Action -- Intentional

Second Part -- Flagrant

And because the First Action incited the Second Part(reaction), the first part then ALSO becomes flagrant.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

First Action -- Intentional

Second Part -- Flagrant

And because the First Action incited the Second Part(reaction), the first part then ALSO becomes flagrant.

So you're penalizing the first player for the second player's actions?

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by SE Minnestoa Re

Both gentlemen would have had the rest of the game to think about their actions as they were residing on the bench.

Really, how would they be on the bench for the remainder of the game? If you are going flagrant, then they are both going to be sitting in their respective locker rooms, not on the bench.

I am going flagrant on both fouls and I would have gone flagrant on the initial foul even if it wasn't followed by the kick.

I don't have offsetting, it is not a double foul. I am going to administer in order of occurrence.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

First Action -- Intentional

Second Part -- Flagrant

And because the First Action incited the Second Part(reaction), the first part then ALSO becomes flagrant.

Originally Posted by Matt

So you're penalizing the first player for the second player's actions?

No. Go check your rule book. I don't have mine with me, or I'd quote it for you.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

First Action -- Intentional

Second Part -- Flagrant

And because the First Action incited the Second Part(reaction), the first part then ALSO becomes flagrant.

Is this because the first action was intentional? Or are you tossing them both for any kind of foul which is followed by a flagrant?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Really, how would they be on the bench for the remainder of the game? If you are going flagrant, then they are both going to be sitting in their respective locker rooms, not on the bench.

In high school ball, you are only ejected to your bench, not the locker room, except in extenuating circumstances. And if a player needs to be removed to the locker room, you better make sure that a responsible adult or administrator accompanies them.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Matt

So you're penalizing the first player for the second player's actions?

It's a case book play. A1 says something to B1. B1 punches A1. Toss them both. That's the basics of it and I don't really like it -- I'm not alone.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dad

Is this because the first action was intentional? Or are you tossing them both for any kind of foul which is followed by a flagrant?

No, this is because the first act(IF) incited the second act(Flagrant).

Think about this scenario. A1 takes a jump shot. B1 blocks the ball out of bounds. B1 follows it up by telling A1 to "Get that Shit outta here!!". Official assesses a technical on on B1 for taunting. A1 reacts by punching B1 in the face as a reaction to B1's taunt. Official assesses A1 with a Flagrant Technical for fighting. You now have to update the original technical on B1 to a Flagrant Technical, because his statement to A1 incited the punch.

Like I said, I don't have my books with me, but perhaps someone will be along with the quotation of the rule and/or casebook play.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Really, how would they be on the bench for the remainder of the game? If you are going flagrant, then they are both going to be sitting in their respective locker rooms, not on the bench.

I am going flagrant on both fouls and I would have gone flagrant on the initial foul even if it wasn't followed by the kick.

I don't have offsetting, it is not a double foul. I am going to administer in order of occurrence.

Remember, players or youth members of a team are "disqualified" and sent to the bench; adult members or personnel of the team are ejected, and sent away from the team and visual confines of the playing area, and are not to have contact with the team during the rest of the contest. Only in instances in which the presence of the penalized, and disqualified youth member of the team would be severely disruptive to the continuation of the game, is that youth team member sent away from the confines of the playing area, and that must be done with adult supervision.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

No, this is because the first act(IF) incited the second act(Flagrant).

Think about this scenario. A1 takes a jump shot. B1 blocks the ball out of bounds. B1 follows it up by telling A1 to "Get that Shit outta here!!". Official assesses a technical on on B1 for taunting. A1 reacts by punching B1 in the face as a reaction to B1's taunt. Official assesses A1 with a Flagrant Technical for fighting. You now have to update the original technical on B1 to a Flagrant Technical, because his statement to A1 incited the punch.

Like I said, I don't have my books with me, but perhaps someone will be along with the quotation of the rule and/or casebook play.

You are 100% correct and I know what case you're talking about. Just curious if you were applying the case book to this scenario if you though white made an attempt to block the shot and wasn't enough contact/whatever for you to call an intentional.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

No, this is because the first act(IF) incited the second act(Flagrant).

Think about this scenario. A1 takes a jump shot. B1 blocks the ball out of bounds. B1 follows it up by telling A1 to "Get that Shit outta here!!". Official assesses a technical on on B1 for taunting. A1 reacts by punching B1 in the face as a reaction to B1's taunt. Official assesses A1 with a Flagrant Technical for fighting. You now have to update the original technical on B1 to a Flagrant Technical, because his statement to A1 incited the punch.

Like I said, I don't have my books with me, but perhaps someone will be along with the quotation of the rule and/or casebook play.

You don't understand the intent of the rule. The OP was not a play where the flagrant was incited. By your logic, if a shooter gets fouled, gets pissed off, and gets a flagrant, you have to upgrade the common foul to a flagrant as well.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dad

You are 100% correct and I know what case you're talking about. Just curious if you were applying the case book to this scenario if you though white made an attempt to block the shot and wasn't enough contact/whatever for you to call an intentional.

Fair question. If I don't judge the contact to be intentional, and believe that the offensive player in this video just overreacted by kicking the defender, then I'm likely only tossing Blue 00. In the video, I've easily got an intentional, therefore I think the upgrade is justified after the reaction by Blue 00.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Matt

You don't understand the intent of the rule. The OP was not a play where the flagrant was incited. By your logic, if a shooter gets fouled, gets pissed off, and gets a flagrant, you have to upgrade the common foul to a flagrant as well.

I disagree with your assessment that the flagrant wasn't incited. A hard intentional foul like that, in my opinion, ABSOLUTLEY incited the flagrant foul. Therefore, I'm tossing them both.

And per my previous post, which I was apparently composing while you composing your post, explains that thought exactly.