HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[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.

[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?

[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 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.

[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 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.

[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.