I think article B is the muddy water that people will always end up split on.
"The unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate in fighting", can be very different from "the attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting at that causes etc, etc".

In the OP if you judged the foul intentional and depending on your rationale for the intentional. You may or may not see that as unsporting and you may not see that as attempting to instigate a fight. In either case it doesn't meet the criteria of a flagrant if that is your perception.

In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.

Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.

And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.

FF1/Intentional on B1 followed by Flagrant Technical on A1. Seems pretty easy.

The more I watch the play, the less I see it as a legitimate attempt to play the ball. I'm still not convinced that it's flagrant. Again, the worst of it comes when they hit the wall. I'm closer to flagrant than I was originally...but I'm still not there.

This is my view of the play. I'm OK with calling this intentional and going on if the kick isn't there. As soon as that happens, I'm much more inclined to upgrade the 1st foul.

Absent the reaction from the other player I can see a case for intentional only. Especially if, as others have alluded, the kid had not been a problem to this point in the game.

The defender may have just been over-aggressive in trying to prevent a dunk without intending to do exactly what he did but it is in no way a legitimate play on the ball and its a very, very dangerous and violent play. Have any of you ever been taking out while in the air like that? I have and its a scary feeling that will often result in retaliation. Most people don't react well to being recklessly put in harm's way.

If this play happens in my games I'm DQing both every time. If you don't, IMO, you are asking for problems. Its not too far fetched to have a team purposely go after a star player of another team in this fashion if they think they can get a reaction that will lead to a flagrant by the opponent and only an intentional on their team.

Either way, there is no place in the game for that type of foul and I'd much rather err on the side of using the strongest penalty allowed by rule to deal with such a play.

I think it's borderline and taken by itself could go either way. There was enough of a violent aspect to the foul and corresponding drag down that a flagrant could be justified in my opinion. Personally, taken all by itself, I would have gone intentional. However, taken in context, which included the retaliating, I would upgrade it to flagrant.

And just to clarify, I don't agree that the rules require you to upgrade it as some have suggested based on 18-2 and corresponding case plays. The foul in and of itself was not an attempt to instigate a fight. I'm simply saying that without the benefit of replay, I'm probably going to want to upgrade this unless my partners really feel strongly otherwise.

I don't think the rule requires it, but it certainly allows for it.

Given that nothing escalated and the players walked away, I'd consider it for a second. Then I would remember that a kick by rule is considered fighting and thus a flagrant act.

4-19-4
A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable ­conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive ­conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

result of this play:

My interpretation is that you have an intentional foul during a live ball that is upgraded to a flagrant foul because of the savage nature of the contact, thus the free throw shooter is the player that was fouled, versus a technical foul, the coach gets to choose the shooter.
In this case the shooter would be a substitute for the player that was ejected for the kick during the dead ball.

Intentional foul followed by a flagrant foul. I don't think I'm disqualifying the player with the intentional.

1. Some people in this thread are incorrectly applying the second artilce of the fighting rule. Notice that it says "an unsporting act" which by NFHS definition is a non-contact foul. That is why the Case Book example is of a player taunting an opponent and inciting a punch.

2. Since the personal foul in this situation involves contact, it cannot fall under the purview of the second article of the fighting rule. We need to ajudge this foul on its own merits.

3. About five years ago the NCAA issued instruction to protect airborne players. They have no ability to protect themselves. Sort of like the NFL's defenseless player rule. Hard fouls from behind on breakaway layups and dunk attempts were used as examples in which the NCAA wanted FF2s called and a disqualification. I'm sure that johnnyd is viewing this video with that mentality.

4. This play may look worse because of how near the wall is to the playing court.

5. Is the personal foul of a violent or savage nature? It is certainly hard and dangerous, but it also isn't a kick, strike, or kneeing of the opponent. Could it be considered a tackle, which would be a violent act or is it just excessive contact? This is what we must determine in order to make the decision between IPF and FPF. I would like to see the NFHS add some language to the definition of a flagrant foul along the lines of "contact which endangers the safety of the opponent." I believe that the foul in the video clearly does that, but we don't currently have such verbiage. The more that I reflect upon this, I believe that the right decision is to declare this contact a tackle/takedown from behind of an airborne player and deem it a violent act which warrants assessing a flagrant personal foul.

6. The kick is clearly a FTF under NFHS rules.

That's a shame. :( Your State feedback is incorrect.

1. Under NFHS rules a live ball, contact foul cannot be a technical foul. Even fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul.

2. The second part of the fighting rule which considers an unsporting act that causes a fighting retaliation to be an act of fighting applies only to NONCONTACT actions such as taunting.

3. A live ball foul followed by dead ball retaliation does not equate to a double foul and offset the FTs. They create a false double foul and the FTs are shot in the order of occurrence.

4. You did it properly. Sorry that your State office people are fools.

The NF only has so much power.
 

States can do whatever they wish to make a rule more strict. You would be incorrect telling him (without knowing) what a state wants to be treated. I was told by someone that sat on an NF Committee that states can make any rule much more punitive if they choose. And at the end of the day, states can do whatever the heck they wish to do with an enforcement, the NF would have to go after them to only take away their voting. Just like Texas that chooses to use NCAA Rules in Football and there is nothing the NF can do about it but take away their voting privileged. But you will not admit that fact considering you treat the NF like they can never be questioned on any level.

Peace

By what rule?