HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

Fair question. If I don't judge the contact to be intentional, and believe that the offensive player in this video just overreacted by kicking the defender, then I'm likely only tossing Blue 00. In the video, I've easily got an intentional, therefore I think the upgrade is justified after the reaction by Blue 00.

[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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

I disagree with your assessment that the flagrant wasn't incited. A hard intentional foul like that, in my opinion, ABSOLUTLEY incited the flagrant foul. Therefore, I'm tossing them both.

And per my previous post, which I was apparently composing while you composing your post, explains that thought exactly.

[Smitty]

I have:

Initial play: intentional

Kick: Flagrant

My reasoning is that I think the defender made a legitimate play on the ball that was overly aggressive, and the part that made it look so bad at the end was the wall was so close to the endline. If there was a normal amount of room between the endline and the wall, I don't think they crash so hard. No excuse for the kick.

[Raymond]

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

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by Matt

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.

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.

[Rob1968]

Case Book 4.18.2 is an example of a player taunting an opponent, and the opponent then retaliating. And because the taunt caused the retaliation - a punch - which was considered to be fighting, the taunter is also dq'd.

The VIDEO being discussed does not show the defensive player doing anything that incites the kick by his opponent. The kick, by itself, is considered a flagrant act. If the covering official considers the initial foul to be of a "violent or savage nature" (4-19-4) the offender may also be dq'd.