HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[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.