HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Flagrant foul/FF2 on the first play

Flagrant T/F2 T for the kick.

I feel the same way. I had to slow the play down to draw that conclusion as it is hard to see the how bad the play is from the angle and quickness of the defender coming into play.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I feel the same way. I had to slow the play down to draw that conclusion as it is hard to see the how bad the play is from the angle and quickness of the defender coming into play.

Peace

My thinking on the play:

Windup: while the defender didn't wind up, the defender did size up the opponent. To me, it's apparent the was gonna make sure that the offensive player was not going to score if he had anything to do with it. This is enough for me to say there was a wind up.

Impact: While the actual impact wasn't great, the contact was above the shoulder.

Follow through: this is the big one for me. The defender has the offensive player around the shoulders and pulls the defender to the floor.

Other factors: Defender is not making a legitimate play on the ball IMO. The offensive player is airborne and has no opportunity to defend himself. There's also a high likelihood for injury on this type of play....wall near to the court or not.

One last thing....and maybe it's nitpicking...but I wish the calling official...after seeing the two bodies go to the floor...went to the players...and specifically to offensive player. A play like this, the offended person is likely to retaliate. If the calling official gets to the players, perhaps he's able to stop the offensive player from kicking the defender.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by APG

My thinking on the play:

Windup: while the defender didn't wind up, the defender did size up the opponent. To me, it's apparent the was gonna make sure that the offensive player was not going to score if he had anything to do with it. This is enough for me to say there was a wind up.

Impact: While the actual impact wasn't great, the contact was above the shoulder.

Follow through: this is the big one for me. The defender has the offensive player around the shoulders and pulls the defender to the floor.

Other factors: Defender is not making a legitimate play on the ball IMO. The offensive player is airborne and has no opportunity to defend himself. There's also a high likelihood for injury on this type of play....wall near to the court or not.

One last thing....and maybe it's nitpicking...but I wish the calling official...after seeing the two bodies go to the floor...went to the players...and specifically to offensive player. A play like this, the offended person is likely to retaliate. If the calling official gets to the players, perhaps he's able to stop the offensive player from kicking the defender.

I wouldn't be upset with tossing both of them, either. I can see what APG is saying about windup. I looks like the defender wasn't just making sure the BH/D wouldn't score, he was making sure the BH/D wouldn't dunk.

I also agree with APG's assessment of the L's actions immediately after the initial foul. Making the IF signal is all well and good but you just had one player knock another player into a (thankfully padded) wall. As I've been told by one of my supervisors, go to the victim. It might prevent the retaliation or even further action by the perpetrator. You can always make the signal once the players separate.