HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[Rob1968]

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.

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 . . . An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

[Rob1968]

Case Book 4.18.2 is an example of a player taunting an opponent, and the opponent then retaliating. And because the taunt caused the retaliation - a punch - which was considered to be fighting, the taunter is also dq'd.

The VIDEO being discussed does not show the defensive player doing anything that incites the kick by his opponent. The kick, by itself, is considered a flagrant act. If the covering official considers the initial foul to be of a "violent or savage nature" (4-19-4) the offender may also be dq'd.

[Smitty]

I have:

Initial play: intentional

Kick: Flagrant

My reasoning is that I think the defender made a legitimate play on the ball that was overly aggressive, and the part that made it look so bad at the end was the wall was so close to the endline. If there was a normal amount of room between the endline and the wall, I don't think they crash so hard. No excuse for the kick.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I have:

Initial play: intentional

Kick: Flagrant

My reasoning is that I think the defender made a legitimate play on the ball

Perhaps if this was a football game.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Perhaps if this was a football game.

Why do you consider the first foul flagrant? I'm curious why any of the people who say flagrant are seeing it that way.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Why do you consider the first foul flagrant?

The defensive player has his left arm around the left side of the offensive player and uses it to intentionally drag him to the ground. The defensive player winds up and follows through with his right arm and uses that action to help bring the offensive player down. Nothing that the defensive player did was remotely close to a normal basketball play, nor was any of it a legitimate attempt to play the ball.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by johnny d

The defensive player has his left arm around the left side of the offensive player and uses it to intentionally drag him to the ground. The defensive player winds up and follows through with his right arm and uses that action to help bring the offensive player down. Nothing that the defensive player did was remotely close to a normal basketball play, nor was any of it a legitimate attempt to play the ball.

Lots of defensive players when going for a block try to hold with the off arm for leverage. I assumed the left arm was to help him get a chance to block the ball with the right.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I do not have these as offsetting.

It's been quite a few years now, but my first fight involved a flagrant personal foul followed by dead ball retaliation (flagrant technical). The feedback I got from the state was that they wanted those both considered fighting, thus both flagrant technical fouls with no free throws to be shot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Why do you consider the first foul flagrant? I'm curious why any of the people who say flagrant are seeing it that way.

It's easily an intentional foul, and I have no problem upgrading to flagrant since it precipitated a fight.

I agree, though, it's not as clear cut to me as it is to others.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Dad

Lots of defensive players when going for a block try to hold with the off arm for leverage. I assumed the left arm was to help him get a chance to block the ball with the right.

It is pretty clear to me that the only intention of the defensive player in this video is to prevent the offensive player from scoring a layup and to do so by any means necessary. This was not an attempt to block a shot. He was not using his off hand to gain leverage to make an attempt to block a shot. The defensive player lined the offensive player up, wound up, followed through, and purposefully dragged the offensive player to the ground. I am going flagrant or ff2 on this play all day every day, without hesitation. If I am the non-calling official in this play, I am bringing this information to my partner. What they decide to do with it is up to them.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's easily an intentional foul, and I have no problem upgrading to flagrant since it precipitated a fight.

I agree, though, it's not as clear cut to me as it is to others.

I could see upgrading or first calling flagrant if the defender had been a knucklehead previously we'd had to deal with him. If the defender, who looks to have gotten the worst of the crash (not that it matters) had retaliated to the kick, I'd have a fight. But the kick in and of itself was the only flagrant act I see. I can still be swayed, though...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I could see upgrading or first calling flagrant if the defender had been a knucklehead previously we'd had to deal with him. If the defender, who looks to have gotten the worst of the crash (not that it matters) had retaliated to the kick, I'd have a fight. But the kick in and of itself was the only flagrant act I see. I can still be swayed, though...

The initial foul was, to me, right on the line between I and F. If he'd been a problem earlier, easy F here. If this instigates a fight, and I consider this kick to be a fight, then I think there's a good case for upgrading the initial foul to F.

[Rob1968]

Would anyone consider,that not dq'ing both, might be inciting to the attitudes and actions of the players/team members throughout the rest of the game, and just avoid that possibility by getting rid of the defender as well as the kicker? And, if doing so, could one feel comfortable with that explanation to the assignor?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Would anyone consider,that not dq'ing both, might be inciting to the attitudes and actions of the players/team members throughout the rest of the game, and just avoid that possibility by getting rid of the defender as well as the kicker? And, if doing so, could one feel comfortable with that explanation to the assignor?

Pretty easy to explain to an assigner sitting both for the rest of the game. Sounds like the majority here are getting rid of both players.

[BigCat]

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.

Someone else has set out the rule for you. The inciting act has to be unsporting before you apply that rule. An intentional foul is not automatically "unsporting." The case play is a taunt and then a punch. Both ejected fight rule. Your example, "get that outta here" -taunt. If punch follows, both ejected under fight rule. Both unsporting.

This play to me is flagrant because of the severity of the contact. This contact is so severe you can apply the unsporting aspect of the rule and eject under if you wanted to. Can't do it on every intentional foul. I grab you to stop the clock and fall on you. You get mad and punch me. Your gone. I get intentional foul only.

Rule also says it is "an attempt to instigate a fight.." That means I'm trying to do something bad/unsporting. It is more than just intentional foul + retaliation= both ejected.