HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

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.

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.

[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.

[OKREF]

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

[Nevadaref]

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.