Separate And Alone ...
 

I'm sure that both you, and bob jenkins, have a good handle on the semantics regarding this topic, or you wouldn't be posting.

I came up with the "intentional flagrant" foul as I was going through the signal sequence that I would make in a game.

This act clearly fits the excessive contact language of an intentional foul, and also clearly fits the violent and savage language of a flagrant foul.

I'm hanging my hat on this definition:

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Please offer a citation that says otherwise.

I do understand that any personal flagrant foul will always involve excessive contact, but not vice versa, all excessive contact will not necessarily be flagrant. Is that what you mean?

Or is it that Rule 4 Definitions lists several different types of fouls and that one can't combine fouls on the list, that they must stand separate and alone? Is that what you mean?

Respectfully, I just (again) went through all the Rule 4 "Foul" definitions and see nothing that prevents us from combining intentional and flagrant. Is your point made somewhere else in the rulebook, or am I (again) missing something in Rule 4?

Please come up with a simple explanation for your point because I would like this to be settled in my mind. Both you, and bob jenkins, can't be wrong.

"Trust, but verify", often attributed to President Ronald Reagan, but is actually a Russian proverb.

Something in the back of my mind told me not to get involved. I should have listened.

But, if I shy away from complex, controversial, situations, I'll never learn.

I guess that I keep thinking about how Jurassic Referee would always ream me out whenever I screwed up. I usually, actually almost always, deserved it.

Agree ...
 

Agree 100%. This was never a problem for me. Never, ever. But a good point for some inexperienced Forum members to remember.

No Harm, No Foul ...
 

What harm could possibly come because a foul is called "intentional flagrant"? Would it really "matter", or is it just a terminology issue?

Would a coach protest that a player shouldn't be ejected because I used the term "intentional"?

Other than the ejection, the penalties are exactly the same. Two shots by fouled player (unless fouled shooting a three pointer that doesn't go in). No players on lane. Offended team gets ball back at spot closest to foul.

Or is it only a problem is one is taking a written test?

And if so, what's the citation that says it's a problem?

Yes.

Or, One Word, One Important Word ...
 

Is this the problem? I found it under Rule10/Fouls/Contact/Penalty.

Two free throws if intentional or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in.

Is the problem because it doesn't state "two free throws if intentional and/or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in"?

There is a big, important difference between the word and and the word or. No doubt about it.

If so, you guys are right, but there must be more to it than that?

Always Listen To bob, Even When He's Terse ...
 

And why would you say that?

I want to agree with you, and JRutledge, but I just need a little push.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.s...=0&w=255&h=170

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Dueling Citations ...
 

Are these the conflicting citations?

Two free throws if intentional or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in.

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

Please let there be more to it than that, otherwise I'm going with 4-19-4 over the other one, and yet, I still feel that I'm wrong, and still need that little push.

If I'm presented with this situation on a written test, I want to get it right and be able to offer more of an explanation than, "Because bob jenkins, and JRutledge, and I, said so".

Uppercase, Lowercase ...
 

Please expound upon this (above).

I really want to get this straightened out, even if it's only for a written test, even if it means that I'm wrong, but I need some reasons. And I will except even a minor reason why I'm wrong, as long as it important enough to overturn this language:

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

The word "It" refers to a flagrant foul, so we can reword it to state: "A flagrant foul may or may not be intentional".

Does that mean, "It may or may not be an intentional foul"? That's the question here.

So 4-19-4 contains the word "intentional" and I want to know what "intentional" means to the NFHS. So, like any good official, I look under Rule 4 Definitions and find this definition of "intentional foul":
4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

I realize that "intentional foul" may not be the same as "intentional", but where else will the NFHS tell me what "intentional" means to them? The Funk & Wagnalls definition may not be the same as the NFHS.

How does one know that, in NFHS language, the word "intentional" in "intentional foul" doesn't really mean the same as the word "intentional" by itself? While that may be true, how does one prove that.

I can hang my hat on this: 4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal ... foul of a violent or savage nature ... It may or may not be intentional.

What do you hang your hat on? This: Two free throws if intentional or flagrant, plus ball for throw-in.?

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.s...=0&w=255&h=170

I want to be convinced. I'm looking forward to it. Please give me that little push. I'm almost there.

Much ado about nothing. If the NFHS rules terminology causes confusion, I would advocate a change to either international practice in referring to deliberate and unsporting fouls as "unsporting" if without an ejection, or "disqualifying" if the offender is ejected, or to NCAA/NBA practice in calling them Flagrant 1/Flagrant 2 fouls, to avoid this issue.

Note: in Europe, where FIBA terminology was developed, a player who has fouled out is "excluded", not disqualified from the game (removed from the game, but not the premises; no additional penalties) as in the States. This is why the FIBA rulebook uses "disqualify" in the sense of "eject" (remove from the game and premises + additional penalties). Therefore, disqualifying foul can be used without confusion if this convention is followed. Otherwise, use unsportIng and ejection foul.

Wouldn't it just be easier if Billy started his own forum?

A William Shakespeare Sighting On The Forum, Is That Cool, Or What ...
 

Yes, but it's still important to get stuff right, even the little stuff.

Debates like this keep us on our toes. Like JRutledge's reminder about who shoots free throws for a flagrant technical foul versus who shoots free throws for a flagrant personal foul, and where the ball is inbounded for each.

And your reminder about what an ejection is for a player versus what an ejection is for an adult coach.

If nothing else of value comes from this thread, than JRutledge's reminder, and your reminder, makes the debate worth it.

The "intentional or not" is about if the actual act is intentional. You are reading waaaayyyyy too much into this. There is not such foul as an Intentional Flagrant Foul. No such animal.

Peace

It would be called, "Twist himself into a pretzel Official's Forum." That is all Billy is doing it arguing with himself about something that no one else is struggling with. ;)

Peace

It's a repetitive theme on EVERY post.

Contribute To This Thread In A Positive Way ...
 

Go to control panel, edit ignore list, and type in my username. I would never do that to anyone, certainly not deecee, but feel free. Or feel free to complain to the moderators, they have the power to do that is right for the Forum.

Or, how's this for an idea, contribute to this thread in a positive way.