HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[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.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I have:

Initial play: intentional

Kick: Flagrant

My reasoning is that I think the defender made a legitimate play on the ball

Perhaps if this was a football game.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Perhaps if this was a football game.

Why do you consider the first foul flagrant? I'm curious why any of the people who say flagrant are seeing it that way.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Why do you consider the first foul flagrant?

The defensive player has his left arm around the left side of the offensive player and uses it to intentionally drag him to the ground. The defensive player winds up and follows through with his right arm and uses that action to help bring the offensive player down. Nothing that the defensive player did was remotely close to a normal basketball play, nor was any of it a legitimate attempt to play the ball.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by johnny d

The defensive player has his left arm around the left side of the offensive player and uses it to intentionally drag him to the ground. The defensive player winds up and follows through with his right arm and uses that action to help bring the offensive player down. Nothing that the defensive player did was remotely close to a normal basketball play, nor was any of it a legitimate attempt to play the ball.

Lots of defensive players when going for a block try to hold with the off arm for leverage. I assumed the left arm was to help him get a chance to block the ball with the right.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Why do you consider the first foul flagrant? I'm curious why any of the people who say flagrant are seeing it that way.

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.

[Smitty]

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 could see upgrading or first calling flagrant if the defender had been a knucklehead previously we'd had to deal with him. If the defender, who looks to have gotten the worst of the crash (not that it matters) had retaliated to the kick, I'd have a fight. But the kick in and of itself was the only flagrant act I see. I can still be swayed, though...

[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.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Why do you consider the first foul flagrant? I'm curious why any of the people who say flagrant are seeing it that way.

I think it's borderline and taken by itself could go either way. There was enough of a violent aspect to the foul and corresponding drag down that a flagrant could be justified in my opinion. Personally, taken all by itself, I would have gone intentional. However, taken in context, which included the retaliating, I would upgrade it to flagrant.

And just to clarify, I don't agree that the rules require you to upgrade it as some have suggested based on 18-2 and corresponding case plays. The foul in and of itself was not an attempt to instigate a fight. I'm simply saying that without the benefit of replay, I'm probably going to want to upgrade this unless my partners really feel strongly otherwise.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

I think it's borderline and taken by itself could go either way. There was enough of a violent aspect to the foul and corresponding drag down that a flagrant could be justified in my opinion. Personally, taken all by itself, I would have gone intentional. However, taken in context, which included the retaliating, I would upgrade it to flagrant.

And just to clarify, I don't agree that the rules require you to upgrade it as some have suggested based on 18-2 and corresponding case plays. The foul in and of itself was not an attempt to instigate a fight. I'm simply saying that without the benefit of replay, I'm probably going to want to upgrade this unless my partners really feel strongly otherwise.

I don't think the rule requires it, but it certainly allows for it.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by 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.

In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.

Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.

And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.

Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.

And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.

The more I watch the play, the less I see it as a legitimate attempt to play the ball. I'm still not convinced that it's flagrant. Again, the worst of it comes when they hit the wall. I'm closer to flagrant than I was originally...but I'm still not there.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Smitty

The more I watch the play, the less I see it as a legitimate attempt to play the ball. I'm still not convinced that it's flagrant. Again, the worst of it comes when they hit the wall. I'm closer to flagrant than I was originally...but I'm still not there.

Absent the reaction from the other player I can see a case for intentional only. Especially if, as others have alluded, the kid had not been a problem to this point in the game.

The defender may have just been over-aggressive in trying to prevent a dunk without intending to do exactly what he did but it is in no way a legitimate play on the ball and its a very, very dangerous and violent play. Have any of you ever been taking out while in the air like that? I have and its a scary feeling that will often result in retaliation. Most people don't react well to being recklessly put in harm's way.

If this play happens in my games I'm DQing both every time. If you don't, IMO, you are asking for problems. Its not too far fetched to have a team purposely go after a star player of another team in this fashion if they think they can get a reaction that will lead to a flagrant by the opponent and only an intentional on their team.

Either way, there is no place in the game for that type of foul and I'd much rather err on the side of using the strongest penalty allowed by rule to deal with such a play.