HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[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.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

It is pretty clear to me that the only intention of the defensive player in this video is to prevent the offensive player from scoring a layup and to do so by any means necessary. This was not an attempt to block a shot. He was not using his off hand to gain leverage to make an attempt to block a shot. The defensive player lined the offensive player up, wound up, followed through, and purposefully dragged the offensive player to the ground. I am going flagrant or ff2 on this play all day every day, without hesitation. If I am the non-calling official in this play, I am bringing this information to my partner. What they decide to do with it is up to them.

[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...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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...

The initial foul was, to me, right on the line between I and F. If he'd been a problem earlier, easy F here. If this instigates a fight, and I consider this kick to be a fight, then I think there's a good case for upgrading the initial foul to F.

[Rob1968]

Would anyone consider,that not dq'ing both, might be inciting to the attitudes and actions of the players/team members throughout the rest of the game, and just avoid that possibility by getting rid of the defender as well as the kicker? And, if doing so, could one feel comfortable with that explanation to the assignor?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Would anyone consider,that not dq'ing both, might be inciting to the attitudes and actions of the players/team members throughout the rest of the game, and just avoid that possibility by getting rid of the defender as well as the kicker? And, if doing so, could one feel comfortable with that explanation to the assignor?

Pretty easy to explain to an assigner sitting both for the rest of the game. Sounds like the majority here are getting rid of both players.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Would anyone consider,that not dq'ing both, might be inciting to the attitudes and actions of the players/team members throughout the rest of the game, and just avoid that possibility by getting rid of the defender as well as the kicker? And, if doing so, could one feel comfortable with that explanation to the assignor?

Given that nothing escalated and the players walked away, I'd consider it for a second. Then I would remember that a kick by rule is considered fighting and thus a flagrant act.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

100% correct and unfortunately this seems to be widely misunderstood by many officials, if the responses on this forum are a reasonable indicator.

[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.