HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I do not have these as offsetting.

It's been quite a few years now, but my first fight involved a flagrant personal foul followed by dead ball retaliation (flagrant technical). The feedback I got from the state was that they wanted those both considered fighting, thus both flagrant technical fouls with no free throws to be shot.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's been quite a few years now, but my first fight involved a flagrant personal foul followed by dead ball retaliation (flagrant technical). The feedback I got from the state was that they wanted those both considered fighting, thus both flagrant technical fouls with no free throws to be shot.

That's a shame. Your State feedback is incorrect.

1. Under NFHS rules a live ball, contact foul cannot be a technical foul. Even fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul.

2. The second part of the fighting rule which considers an unsporting act that causes a fighting retaliation to be an act of fighting applies only to NONCONTACT actions such as taunting.

3. A live ball foul followed by dead ball retaliation does not equate to a double foul and offset the FTs. They create a false double foul and the FTs are shot in the order of occurrence.

4. You did it properly. Sorry that your State office people are fools.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's a shame. Your State feedback is incorrect.

States can do whatever they wish to make a rule more strict. You would be incorrect telling him (without knowing) what a state wants to be treated. I was told by someone that sat on an NF Committee that states can make any rule much more punitive if they choose. And at the end of the day, states can do whatever the heck they wish to do with an enforcement, the NF would have to go after them to only take away their voting. Just like Texas that chooses to use NCAA Rules in Football and there is nothing the NF can do about it but take away their voting privileged. But you will not admit that fact considering you treat the NF like they can never be questioned on any level.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

States can do whatever they wish to make a rule more strict. You would be incorrect telling him (without knowing) what a state wants to be treated. I was told by someone that sat on an NF Committee that states can make any rule much more punitive if they choose. And at the end of the day, states can do whatever the heck they wish to do with an enforcement, the NF would have to go after them to only take away their voting. Just like Texas that chooses to use NCAA Rules in Football and there is nothing the NF can do about it but take away their voting privileged. But you will not admit that fact considering you treat the NF like they can never be questioned on any level.

Your constant and tireless appeal to the ability of state associations to alter playing rules or mechanics has become tedious.

Adam is not in a state that does not have NFHS voting rights. His state professes to adhere to NFHS rules. The specific situation he raised and to which I responded was simply about how to properly adjudicate these fouls under NFHS rules during the game. It had nothing to do with the state office adding a harsher penalty or suspension after the fact.
Altering a personal foul to a technical foul is not a policy of his state office. It is simply a mistaken interpretation by whomever responded to his situation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Your constant and tireless appeal to the ability of state associations to alter playing rules or mechanics has become tedious.

Adam is not in a state that does not have NFHS voting rights. His state professes to adhere to NFHS rules. The specific situation he raised and to which I responded was simply about how to properly adjudicate these fouls under NFHS rules during the game. It had nothing to do with the state office adding a harsher penalty or suspension after the fact.
Altering a personal foul to a technical foul is not a policy of his state office. It is simply a mistaken interpretation by whomever responded to his situation.

I do not have an appeal, I am stating the truth from people unlike you and me that have actually sat on the NF Rules Committee or other Committees. And Adam said that his state said to do it one way, there is nothing the NF can do about it. The best example is how my state does not use the NF uniform rule the way it is written. There were too many problems with the rule and cause a lot of issues with the enforcement (too many Ts) and the BOD decide to basically create their own rule to make the game functional. Never heard a single thing of the NF doing anything or complaining about that fact.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's a shame. Your State feedback is incorrect.

1. Under NFHS rules a live ball, contact foul cannot be a technical foul. Even fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul.

2. The second part of the fighting rule which considers an unsporting act that causes a fighting retaliation to be an act of fighting applies only to NONCONTACT actions such as taunting.

3. A live ball foul followed by dead ball retaliation does not equate to a double foul and offset the FTs. They create a false double foul and the FTs are shot in the order of occurrence.

4. You did it properly. Sorry that your State office people are fools.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

States can do whatever they wish to make a rule more strict. You would be incorrect telling him (without knowing) what a state wants to be treated. I was told by someone that sat on an NF Committee that states can make any rule much more punitive if they choose. And at the end of the day, states can do whatever the heck they wish to do with an enforcement, the NF would have to go after them to only take away their voting. Just like Texas that chooses to use NCAA Rules in Football and there is nothing the NF can do about it but take away their voting privileged. But you will not admit that fact considering you treat the NF like they can never be questioned on any level.

Peace

Jeff is correct. The NFHS Basketball Rules state that Taunting is a TF for Unsportsmanlike Conduct but is not necessarily a FTF. But, the MichignHSAA has ruled that all Taunting is to be considered a FTF.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

MTD,
Care to read the situation posted by Adam again?
His first foul was not for taunting.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

MTD,
Care to read the situation posted by Adam again?
His first foul was not for taunting.

I was not commenting about what Adam said. I was agreeing with Jeff that a StateHSAA can impose more stringent rules regarding taunting and gave a real life example, i.e., the MichiganHSAA.

MTD, Sr.

[APG]

Flagrant foul/FF2 on the first play

Flagrant T/F2 T for the kick.