HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[ltllng]

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.

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.

[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.

[BlueDevilRef]

Id have to say as to the layup, what has game been like to this point? If nothing else weird or choppy, then IF seems to be in line. If it has been Rock em sock em to that point, flagrant on both.

Serious question-if both are flagrant, are they not offsetting and go to POI?


I wish I had a cool signature

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

Id have to say as to the layup, what has game been like to this point? If nothing else weird or choppy, then IF seems to be in line. If it has been Rock em sock em to that point, flagrant on both.

Serious question-if both are flagrant, are they not offsetting and go to POI?


I wish I had a cool signature

I do not have these as offsetting.

[Dad]

Why are so many giving the initial foul a flagrant? I can see intentional, but don't understand how you can come up with a flagrant. Reasoning?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dad

Why are so many giving the initial foul a flagrant? I can see intentional, but don't understand how you can come up with a flagrant. Reasoning?

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

By what rule?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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

[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.