Personal Or Technical ???

[BillyMac]

I just viewed an IAABO video that we were asked to comment on. I won't go into all the details but instead will just boil it all down to one simple question.

During a live ball, A1 intentionally (no question) throws the basketball into B1's face, hitting B1 hard on B1's nose, who falls down. No question that it was a flagrant foul.

Live ball contact and a flagrant personal foul?

Or live ball no contact and flagrant technical foul?

I know that this has discussed previously on the Forum, I just can't remember what the consensus was.

It makes a difference because in the flagrant personal foul B1 will shoot the free throws and Team A gets the ball back at the closest spot to the foul.

In the flagrant technical foul, any eligible Team B player will shoot the free throws and Team B will get the ball at the division line opposite the table.

Also, is the phrase "flagrant intentional" redundant, or just dead wrong?

[JRutledge]

There is no personal contact, so it cannot be a personal foul. The act was unsporting if deemed to be.

I believe I saw this video posted on one of the FB pages. Clearly a technical foul. I would even be OK with a Flagrant Technical as the entire thing had ill will associated with the act. It was not like he was trying to save the ball from a violation and happened to hit him in the face.

Peace

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Also, is the phrase "flagrant intentional" redundant, or just dead wrong?

Dead wrong.

Intentional and flagrant fouls are two different things, by definition.

[Nevadaref]

Flagrant technical foul is correct. Personal fouls involve physical contact between opponents, not the basketball and a player.

Also, SC official is correct about the terminology. Those modifiers are mutually exclusive.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... is the phrase "flagrant intentional" redundant, or just dead wrong?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Those modifiers are mutually exclusive.

Because all flagrant fouls are deemed to be "intentional"?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because all flagrant fouls are deemed to be "intentional"?

No. Because they're different but similar....sort of like medium and large.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because all flagrant fouls are deemed to be "intentional"?

One involves an ejection the other does not. That is why they need to change the terminology on these fouls as every other level has done essentially.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No. Because they're different but similar....sort of like medium and large.

[ilyazhito]

Throwing the ball at an opponent's face is a Flagrant (2) technical foul. It is unacceptable behavior, and could provoke retaliation.

[JRutledge]

And one of the big reasons it matters what you call, who shoots the free throws is totally different in a technical or a flagrant/intentional foul. So we have to understand the difference.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And one of the big reasons it matters what you call, who shoots the free throws is totally different in a technical or a flagrant/intentional foul. So we have to understand the difference.

Agree. Also different throwin spots.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... flagrant/intentional foul.

Not in my original situation, which was clearly technical (live ball, no contact), but in a different situation with live ball personal contact (i.e., hard push into the bleachers), why can't we describe the personal foul as a flagrant intentional personal foul, or a intentional flagrant personal foul?

Is it as simple as because the rules don't allow two different fouls for one illegal contact? The word intentional or flagrant isn't just an adjective modifier. One can't charge a flagrant and intentional personal foul, or a intentional and flagrant personal foul.

If the calling official comes up with the crossed arms signal, and then after consultation with his partner decides to also toss the offending player, has the foul been completely "changed", or just "upgraded" (upgrade meaning that the officials now want to also toss the offending player). With the exception of the tossing, the rest of the penalty would be the same for both (two free throws for offended player, ball at designated spot closest to the foul).

Maybe the answer to my questions is as simple as I stated above.

[JRutledge]

Billy,

I was not saying that intentional and flagrant fouls were applied for the same action. Saying that those are personal fouls and are administered differently than a technical foul. I put them together because intentional and flagrant fouls that are personal, are administered the exact same way. The difference is that a flagrant foul requires disqualification from the contest. But the offended player shoots all those FTs and the ball is put in at the point of the foul. If you have a technical, anyone can shoot and the ball in NF rules is put at the division line opposite the table. That why it matters if a player throws a ball at a player we do not consider that a personal foul and then only allow the player he hit the ball with being the one that is required to shoot the FTs. I was not at all suggesting you can or are able to call a flagrant and and intentional at the same time.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was not at all suggesting you can or are able to call a flagrant and an intentional at the same time.

Sorry. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, and I actually knew that you weren't suggesting that, but your "forward slash" triggered a question in my self isolated, social distancing head.

Forum members have said for years that one can't charge a flagrant and an intentional foul at the same time (the rulebook often separates the words intentional and flagrant with an "or"), I just wanted to know a definitive why.

I wanted a more definitive answer other than, "Because I said so".

Maybe intentional and flagrant can't be used as adjective modifiers in the generic Funk & Wagnalls sense?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because all flagrant fouls are deemed to be "intentional"?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

One involves an ejection the other does not. That is why they need to change the terminology on these fouls as every other level has done essentially.

Not all intentional fouls are deemed flagrant.

Not sure that the NFHS needs to change its terminology, but it might help me to better understand this issue.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not all intentional fouls are deemed flagrant.

Not sure that the NFHS needs to change its terminology, but it might help me to better understand this issue.

Yes, they do need to change it. They need to remove the word intentional from the vocabulary so people will call it even when it isn't done intentionally.