HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO
 

Received this video from our association of a recent play and the expected adjudication (which I had when I first watched the video).

Flagrant/Intentional on the initial foul
then Flagrant/Technical for the kick

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BKaLOfEh2Ic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dang. On first watching I had INT on the first foul and regular tech on the second thing but after I've seen it a few times I say toss both of them.

I really wouldn't have any issue with either intentional or flagrant personal on the first foul.

Kick is definitely a flagrant T.

00's sub will shoot two first, then any white player shoots for the T. White ball at division line.

I do wish the calling official closed in on the initial contact.

So was the expected adjudication Flagrant or Intentional on the personal foul?

I think I would have discussed with partners and probably suggested that both be flagrant. But I would have either they both flagrant or give them both a second chance.

I was surprised at how calm things were after this so maybe this looked worse on video. If the officials felt that the game was still under control with no risk of further issues, I could see going intentional and technical and moving on.

The initial foul should have been a flagrant, and same for the kick. Both should have gotten the boot.

I believe what was done in the game was INT and T.

Both gentlemen would have had the rest of the game to think about their actions as they were residing on the bench.

No such thing as a "Flagrant Intentional" foul.

It can be one or the other (or neither), but not both.

He didn't say flagrant intentional. Flagrant/Intention = pick one.

Id have to say as to the layup, what has game been like to this point? If nothing else weird or choppy, then IF seems to be in line. If it has been Rock em sock em to that point, flagrant on both.

Serious question-if both are flagrant, are they not offsetting and go to POI?


I wish I had a cool signature

I don't think that's what he meant, based on his later posts.

But if it was then it's not a choice between "Flagrant" and "Technical" in the next part of his post.

I do not have these as offsetting.

Why are so many giving the initial foul a flagrant? I can see intentional, but don't understand how you can come up with a flagrant. Reasoning?

Maybe, but I'm not sure that it would've made a difference... and if he had closed down, it would've been harder for him to see the kick.

On the initial foul, I'm initially coming up with an intentional foul. However, this foul is what caused Blue 00 to react by kicking. Because the initial foul is what caused the response by Blue 00, and that one is deemed flagrant, the act which incited the kick is also deemed flagrant.

In the end, I'm ejecting them both.

Ok. Thanks! Offsetting would be only if they actually happen at the same time....got it.


I wish I had a cool signature

My OP was to see on the first action if you would have a flagrant OR int, and on the second part if you would have a run of the mill T or flagrant.

First Action -- Intentional

Second Part -- Flagrant

And because the First Action incited the Second Part(reaction), the first part then ALSO becomes flagrant.

So you're penalizing the first player for the second player's actions?

Really, how would they be on the bench for the remainder of the game? If you are going flagrant, then they are both going to be sitting in their respective locker rooms, not on the bench.

I am going flagrant on both fouls and I would have gone flagrant on the initial foul even if it wasn't followed by the kick.

I don't have offsetting, it is not a double foul. I am going to administer in order of occurrence.

No. Go check your rule book. I don't have mine with me, or I'd quote it for you.

Is this because the first action was intentional? Or are you tossing them both for any kind of foul which is followed by a flagrant?

In high school ball, you are only ejected to your bench, not the locker room, except in extenuating circumstances. And if a player needs to be removed to the locker room, you better make sure that a responsible adult or administrator accompanies them.

It's a case book play. A1 says something to B1. B1 punches A1. Toss them both. That's the basics of it and I don't really like it -- I'm not alone.

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.

Remember, players or youth members of a team are "disqualified" and sent to the bench; adult members or personnel of the team are ejected, and sent away from the team and visual confines of the playing area, and are not to have contact with the team during the rest of the contest. Only in instances in which the presence of the penalized, and disqualified youth member of the team would be severely disruptive to the continuation of the game, is that youth team member sent away from the confines of the playing area, and that must be done with adult supervision.

You are 100% correct and I know what case you're talking about. Just curious if you were applying the case book to this scenario if you though white made an attempt to block the shot and wasn't enough contact/whatever for you to call an intentional.

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.

Fair question. If I don't judge the contact to be intentional, and believe that the offensive player in this video just overreacted by kicking the defender, then I'm likely only tossing Blue 00. In the video, I've easily got an intentional, therefore I think the upgrade is justified after the reaction by Blue 00.

I disagree with your assessment that the flagrant wasn't incited. A hard intentional foul like that, in my opinion, ABSOLUTLEY incited the flagrant foul. Therefore, I'm tossing them both.

And per my previous post, which I was apparently composing while you composing your post, explains that thought exactly.

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 . . . An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

Case Book 4.18.2 is an example of a player taunting an opponent, and the opponent then retaliating. And because the taunt caused the retaliation - a punch - which was considered to be fighting, the taunter is also dq'd.

The VIDEO being discussed does not show the defensive player doing anything that incites the kick by his opponent. The kick, by itself, is considered a flagrant act. If the covering official considers the initial foul to be of a "violent or savage nature" (4-19-4) the offender may also be dq'd.

I have:

Initial play: intentional

Kick: Flagrant

My reasoning is that I think the defender made a legitimate play on the ball that was overly aggressive, and the part that made it look so bad at the end was the wall was so close to the endline. If there was a normal amount of room between the endline and the wall, I don't think they crash so hard. No excuse for the kick.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Someone else has set out the rule for you. The inciting act has to be unsporting before you apply that rule. An intentional foul is not automatically "unsporting." The case play is a taunt and then a punch. Both ejected fight rule. Your example, "get that outta here" -taunt. If punch follows, both ejected under fight rule. Both unsporting.

This play to me is flagrant because of the severity of the contact. This contact is so severe you can apply the unsporting aspect of the rule and eject under if you wanted to. Can't do it on every intentional foul. I grab you to stop the clock and fall on you. You get mad and punch me. Your gone. I get intentional foul only.

Rule also says it is "an attempt to instigate a fight.." That means I'm trying to do something bad/unsporting. It is more than just intentional foul + retaliation= both ejected.

I think article B is the muddy water that people will always end up split on.
"The unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate in fighting", can be very different from "the attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting at that causes etc, etc".

In the OP if you judged the foul intentional and depending on your rationale for the intentional. You may or may not see that as unsporting and you may not see that as attempting to instigate a fight. In either case it doesn't meet the criteria of a flagrant if that is your perception.

In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.

Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.

And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.

FF1/Intentional on B1 followed by Flagrant Technical on A1. Seems pretty easy.

The more I watch the play, the less I see it as a legitimate attempt to play the ball. I'm still not convinced that it's flagrant. Again, the worst of it comes when they hit the wall. I'm closer to flagrant than I was originally...but I'm still not there.

This is my view of the play. I'm OK with calling this intentional and going on if the kick isn't there. As soon as that happens, I'm much more inclined to upgrade the 1st foul.

Absent the reaction from the other player I can see a case for intentional only. Especially if, as others have alluded, the kid had not been a problem to this point in the game.

The defender may have just been over-aggressive in trying to prevent a dunk without intending to do exactly what he did but it is in no way a legitimate play on the ball and its a very, very dangerous and violent play. Have any of you ever been taking out while in the air like that? I have and its a scary feeling that will often result in retaliation. Most people don't react well to being recklessly put in harm's way.

If this play happens in my games I'm DQing both every time. If you don't, IMO, you are asking for problems. Its not too far fetched to have a team purposely go after a star player of another team in this fashion if they think they can get a reaction that will lead to a flagrant by the opponent and only an intentional on their team.

Either way, there is no place in the game for that type of foul and I'd much rather err on the side of using the strongest penalty allowed by rule to deal with such a play.

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.

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.

4-19-4
A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable ­conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive ­conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

result of this play:

My interpretation is that you have an intentional foul during a live ball that is upgraded to a flagrant foul because of the savage nature of the contact, thus the free throw shooter is the player that was fouled, versus a technical foul, the coach gets to choose the shooter.
In this case the shooter would be a substitute for the player that was ejected for the kick during the dead ball.

Intentional foul followed by a flagrant foul. I don't think I'm disqualifying the player with the intentional.

1. Some people in this thread are incorrectly applying the second artilce of the fighting rule. Notice that it says "an unsporting act" which by NFHS definition is a non-contact foul. That is why the Case Book example is of a player taunting an opponent and inciting a punch.

2. Since the personal foul in this situation involves contact, it cannot fall under the purview of the second article of the fighting rule. We need to ajudge this foul on its own merits.

3. About five years ago the NCAA issued instruction to protect airborne players. They have no ability to protect themselves. Sort of like the NFL's defenseless player rule. Hard fouls from behind on breakaway layups and dunk attempts were used as examples in which the NCAA wanted FF2s called and a disqualification. I'm sure that johnnyd is viewing this video with that mentality.

4. This play may look worse because of how near the wall is to the playing court.

5. Is the personal foul of a violent or savage nature? It is certainly hard and dangerous, but it also isn't a kick, strike, or kneeing of the opponent. Could it be considered a tackle, which would be a violent act or is it just excessive contact? This is what we must determine in order to make the decision between IPF and FPF. I would like to see the NFHS add some language to the definition of a flagrant foul along the lines of "contact which endangers the safety of the opponent." I believe that the foul in the video clearly does that, but we don't currently have such verbiage. The more that I reflect upon this, I believe that the right decision is to declare this contact a tackle/takedown from behind of an airborne player and deem it a violent act which warrants assessing a flagrant personal foul.

6. The kick is clearly a FTF under NFHS rules.

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.

The NF only has so much power.
 

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

By what rule?

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.

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.

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

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

Intentional Personal Foul for Excessive Contact by W1. B1 is then charged with a Flagrant Technical Foul and is disqualified. This makes the situation a False Double Foul. B1's substitute will shoot two FTs with no players along the FT Lane for W1's IPF. Then any player from Team A will shoot two free FTs for B1's FTF and then Team A sill receive the Ball for a Throw-in at the Division Line opposite the Table.

MTD, Sr.

Bob:

You are correct that there is no such thing as a "Flagrant Intentional Foul". But most Flagrant Fouls are certainly Intentional.

MTD, Sr.

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.

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.

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

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.

Live ball/Dead ball and yes the result is booting both players.

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.

Do I understand correctly, that NCAA guidelines mention a "wind-up" as a factor to be considered, in judging the severity and consequent penalties, in such cases? I'm unaware of such statement in NFHS guidelines.
I've been taught, and follow the principle, when severe contact occurs, especially with the players going to the floor, first, to close in, and take care of the players, and any others who may join the scene. Then, on-site signals can be given. I also use my voice, and sometimes emphatically, to let them know that I'm there, close, and they need not retaliate.

Great point,

Certainly doesn't explain fouled player actions in any way. But if he gets in there quicker maybe kick never happens.

From the NCAA-M Rule book:

d. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme while the ball is live. In determining whether a foul has risen to the level of a flagrant 2, officials should consider the following:

1. The severity of the contact;

2. Whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot. Note that a player may still be assessed a flagrant 2 foul on an attempted blocked shot when there are other factors such as hard contact to the head or the defender winding up or emphatically following through with the contact);

3. The potential for injury resulting from the contact (e.g., a blow to the head or a foul committed while the player was in a vulnerable position).

4. Any contact by the offending player to the groin area of an opponent which is not clearly accidental. Note: The above acts represent examples of potential flagrant 2 fouls. Other acts may also qualify, if they meet the criteria of being not only excessive but also severe or extreme.

It should also be noted that the WIF guideline is from the NBA. In fact a lot of the criteria I used earlier is from NBA guidelines on what they consider a FF1/FF2. Now someone people may not agree, but I think it's a good baseline as to what to consider intentional/flagrant in games where NFHS has not done a good job except as to give vague, general statements...especially in regard to flagrant fouls.

Someone needs to build a new gym for that school. Absurdly dangerous.

As the first person in this thread to have mentioned the "upgrade based on reaction" to the first foul, I would like to rescind that statement. In reading the discussion here, I have been educated, and I realize that there is no justification in the book for said upgrade as the original foul, in my opinion, was not an unsporting act.

Thank you all for your comments and incites.

That would lead to an upgrade, however, if someone reacts to it.

This is the type of response which makes it worth it for me to spend my time on this forum. Learning that a fellow official gained a better understanding of a rule and its proper application because of our discussion verifies the value and purpose of this.
*Now we will add a quick lesson on homonyms because of Camron's humorous comment. :)

*homonym: a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not

incite: to cause (someone) to act in an angry, harmful, or violent way
insight: an understanding of the true nature of something

Thanks for posting this. I agree that the NCAA has done a much better job of defining a disqualifying foul (FF2) than the NFHS. The NFHS wording seems antiquated to me and fails to give officials the necessary rules support to protect the safety of the players, in my opinion.

As I mentioned in a previous post the mentality of those who have been instructed at the college level in the past few years is quite different from the NFHS-only official or the college ref from years ago towards these hard fouls against airborne players. I'm glad to see that the NCAA has codified the instruction language from a few years ago into its rulesbook. Not having such in the NFHS book leaves officials to deal with the terms excessive, violent, and savage. As demonstrated here, parsing those leads to unclear outcomes.

I note the decision of some in this discussion who are going with an IPF and not a FPF under NFHS rules and think that it has a tremendous amount to do with seeing this play as excessive contact, but not believing it to be violent or savage due to the common definition of those words. I wonder if someone such as MTD would have a different decision if he ruled on this play for an NCAAM's contest using the rules which you have just posted. He is a great example for the category that I mentioned before of someone who is a longtime NFHS official and/or a college official from previous years. I greatly respect his opinions and know that he cares about doing quality and proper officiating, so it is worthwhile to contrast his thoughts with those of johnnyd and APG, who are in the new/current college official crowd and getting the latest instruction on how the NCAA wants this aspect of the game called.

I truly believe that the difference in the rulesbook language and the training from one level to the other, as well as from one time period to the next, causes these differing decisions from quality officials who view the same play. That shouldn't be the case and in this instance it is something which I think can be fixed by updating the NFHS book.

For player safety the action shown in the video needs to be a disqualifying foul (flagrant) in the high school game.