Thoughts on Block/Charge play and sequence that follows

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In other words, I'm "upgrading" my intentional foul to a flagrant foul, and calling it an intentional flagrant foul, which as JRutledge pointed out, simply adds the additional penalty of an ejection.

Sometimes an excessive contact intentional foul doesn't rise to the violent, or savage level of a flagrant foul, but sometimes it does.

There is no such thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul. A Flagrant Foul is just that, a flagrant act. If that is the case, then you do not need to complicate the issue. Now if it was a technical, then you can have a Flagrant Technical. But that is not enforced the same as a regular flagrant foul. A Flagrant Foul only the fouled player can shoot that unless injured of course. Anyone can shoot a Flagrant Technical Foul. Kind of why the language matters here.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is no such thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul. Kind of why the language matters here.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm definitely (and immediately) coming in with an intentional foul signal (the X), possibly adding the IAABO-unapproved excessive contact signal (drop both hands), and then definitely adding the IAABO-unapproved "heave ho", or "you're outta here", signal (point to the sky).

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I've decided to play.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Now if it was a technical, then you can have a Flagrant Technical. But that is not enforced the same as a regular flagrant foul. A Flagrant Foul only the fouled player can shoot that unless injured of course. Anyone can shoot a Flagrant Technical Foul. Kind of why the language matters here.

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is no such thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul. Kind of why the language matters here.

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?

[BillyMac]

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?