HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[Camron Rust]

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 have an intentional only for the first if it was not preceded by something else in the game.

For that matter, I don't see the 2nd one as automatically flagrant either. A nudge with the foot is no more a kick than a nudge with the hand is a punch and I don't see a lot of people calling flagrant T's for that. The level of contact was right around the point i would consider it a kick in the sense of fighting so I don't have a problem with it being a flagrant either....but it isn't black and white.

What I don't have is upgrading the first one to flagrant because of the 2nd one. There is no rules support for upgrading a personal foul for a flagrant act that follows.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Your constant and tireless appeal to the ability of state associations to alter playing rules or mechanics has become tedious.

Adam is not in a state that does not have NFHS voting rights. His state professes to adhere to NFHS rules. The specific situation he raised and to which I responded was simply about how to properly adjudicate these fouls under NFHS rules during the game. It had nothing to do with the state office adding a harsher penalty or suspension after the fact.
Altering a personal foul to a technical foul is not a policy of his state office. It is simply a mistaken interpretation by whomever responded to his situation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What I don't have is upgrading the first one to flagrant because of the 2nd one. There is no rules support for upgrading a personal foul for a flagrant act that follows.

100% correct and unfortunately this seems to be widely misunderstood by many officials, if the responses on this forum are a reasonable indicator.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your constant and tireless appeal to the ability of state associations to alter playing rules or mechanics has become tedious.

Adam is not in a state that does not have NFHS voting rights. His state professes to adhere to NFHS rules. The specific situation he raised and to which I responded was simply about how to properly adjudicate these fouls under NFHS rules during the game. It had nothing to do with the state office adding a harsher penalty or suspension after the fact.
Altering a personal foul to a technical foul is not a policy of his state office. It is simply a mistaken interpretation by whomever responded to his situation.

I do not have an appeal, I am stating the truth from people unlike you and me that have actually sat on the NF Rules Committee or other Committees. And Adam said that his state said to do it one way, there is nothing the NF can do about it. The best example is how my state does not use the NF uniform rule the way it is written. There were too many problems with the rule and cause a lot of issues with the enforcement (too many Ts) and the BOD decide to basically create their own rule to make the game functional. Never heard a single thing of the NF doing anything or complaining about that fact.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by deecee

Received this video from our association of a recent play and the expected adjudication (which I had when I first watched the video).

Flagrant/Intentional on the initial foul
then Flagrant/Technical for the kick

Intentional Personal Foul for Excessive Contact by W1. B1 is then charged with a Flagrant Technical Foul and is disqualified. This makes the situation a False Double Foul. B1's substitute will shoot two FTs with no players along the FT Lane for W1's IPF. Then any player from Team A will shoot two free FTs for B1's FTF and then Team A sill receive the Ball for a Throw-in at the Division Line opposite the Table.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No such thing as a "Flagrant Intentional" foul.

It can be one or the other (or neither), but not both.

Bob:

You are correct that there is no such thing as a "Flagrant Intentional Foul". But most Flagrant Fouls are certainly Intentional.

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Jeff is correct. The NFHS Basketball Rules state that Taunting is a TF for Unsportsmanlike Conduct but is not necessarily a FTF. But, the MichignHSAA has ruled that all Taunting is to be considered a FTF.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

MTD,
Care to read the situation posted by Adam again?
His first foul was not for taunting.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

MTD,
Care to read the situation posted by Adam again?
His first foul was not for taunting.

I was not commenting about what Adam said. I was agreeing with Jeff that a StateHSAA can impose more stringent rules regarding taunting and gave a real life example, i.e., the MichiganHSAA.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Flagrant foul/FF2 on the first play

Flagrant T/F2 T for the kick.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Flagrant foul/FF2 on the first play

Flagrant T/F2 T for the kick.

I feel the same way. I had to slow the play down to draw that conclusion as it is hard to see the how bad the play is from the angle and quickness of the defender coming into play.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I feel the same way. I had to slow the play down to draw that conclusion as it is hard to see the how bad the play is from the angle and quickness of the defender coming into play.

Peace

My thinking on the play:

Windup: while the defender didn't wind up, the defender did size up the opponent. To me, it's apparent the was gonna make sure that the offensive player was not going to score if he had anything to do with it. This is enough for me to say there was a wind up.

Impact: While the actual impact wasn't great, the contact was above the shoulder.

Follow through: this is the big one for me. The defender has the offensive player around the shoulders and pulls the defender to the floor.

Other factors: Defender is not making a legitimate play on the ball IMO. The offensive player is airborne and has no opportunity to defend himself. There's also a high likelihood for injury on this type of play....wall near to the court or not.

One last thing....and maybe it's nitpicking...but I wish the calling official...after seeing the two bodies go to the floor...went to the players...and specifically to offensive player. A play like this, the offended person is likely to retaliate. If the calling official gets to the players, perhaps he's able to stop the offensive player from kicking the defender.

[BrentD2222]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

On the initial foul, I'm initially coming up with an intentional foul. However, this foul is what caused Blue 00 to react by kicking. Because the initial foul is what caused the response by Blue 00, and that one is deemed flagrant, the act which incited the kick is also deemed flagrant.

In the end, I'm ejecting them both.

Live ball/Dead ball and yes the result is booting both players.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by APG

My thinking on the play:

Windup: while the defender didn't wind up, the defender did size up the opponent. To me, it's apparent the was gonna make sure that the offensive player was not going to score if he had anything to do with it. This is enough for me to say there was a wind up.

Impact: While the actual impact wasn't great, the contact was above the shoulder.

Follow through: this is the big one for me. The defender has the offensive player around the shoulders and pulls the defender to the floor.

Other factors: Defender is not making a legitimate play on the ball IMO. The offensive player is airborne and has no opportunity to defend himself. There's also a high likelihood for injury on this type of play....wall near to the court or not.

One last thing....and maybe it's nitpicking...but I wish the calling official...after seeing the two bodies go to the floor...went to the players...and specifically to offensive player. A play like this, the offended person is likely to retaliate. If the calling official gets to the players, perhaps he's able to stop the offensive player from kicking the defender.

I wouldn't be upset with tossing both of them, either. I can see what APG is saying about windup. I looks like the defender wasn't just making sure the BH/D wouldn't score, he was making sure the BH/D wouldn't dunk.

I also agree with APG's assessment of the L's actions immediately after the initial foul. Making the IF signal is all well and good but you just had one player knock another player into a (thankfully padded) wall. As I've been told by one of my supervisors, go to the victim. It might prevent the retaliation or even further action by the perpetrator. You can always make the signal once the players separate.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

I wouldn't be upset with tossing both of them, either. I can see what APG is saying about windup. I looks like the defender wasn't just making sure the BH/D wouldn't' score, he was making sure the BH/D wouldn't dunk.

I also agree with APG's assessment of the L's actions immediately after the initial foul. Making the IF signal is all well and good but you just had one player knock another player into a (thankfully padded) wall. As I've been told by one of my supervisors, go to the victim. It might prevent the retaliation or even further action by the perpetrator. You can always make the signal once the players separate.

Do I understand correctly, that NCAA guidelines mention a "wind-up" as a factor to be considered, in judging the severity and consequent penalties, in such cases? I'm unaware of such statement in NFHS guidelines.
I've been taught, and follow the principle, when severe contact occurs, especially with the players going to the floor, first, to close in, and take care of the players, and any others who may join the scene. Then, on-site signals can be given. I also use my voice, and sometimes emphatically, to let them know that I'm there, close, and they need not retaliate.