Thoughts on Block/Charge play and sequence that follows

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... use of "intentional" is different from the use in Intentional foul.

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.?



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