Quote:
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.
Mon Jan 11, 2016, 12:41pm
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
