Personal Or Technical ???

[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.

[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

[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 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.

[JRutledge]

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.

I'm aware, but that is the issue with the terminology and it needs to be changed. There is no confusion at other levels the way it is with the NF terminology. An "Intentional Foul" does not have to be an intentional act either. But people will say, "But he did not do it on purpose." Rather bad IMO and confusing.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... that is the issue with the terminology and it needs to be changed ... An "Intentional Foul" does not have to be an intentional act either.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1037598

[BillyMac]

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

A player, while in player control (holding the ball), frustrated by an annoyingly troublesome closely guarding defender, intentionally and deliberately (but not flagrantly, the illegal contact was not violent or savage) grabs the jersey of said defender (not a legitimate basketball play) and pulls him to the side and dribbles past said defender.

What's the call?

Can't be an intentional player control foul?

Can't be an intentional foul and a player control foul (one's common, one's not, can't be an uncommon common foul)?

Right?

No free throws because it's illegal contact by a player in control of the ball (holding the ball)?

Two free throws (no rebounders) because the illegal contact was intentional (jersey grab) and was not a legitimate basketball play?

Does the intentional aspect of this illegal contact trump the common player control aspect of this illegal contact?

Wasn't there a case play or annual interpretation regarding such?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can't be an intentional foul and a player control foul (one's common, one's not, can't be an uncommon common foul)?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

New situation. This social isolating and social distancing is getting to me.

I hate to break it to you, but no one can tell the difference.

It's an IP. Somewhere there's a case that states something like, "Is it possible for a player in control of the ball to commit a foul that's not a PC? Yes, it could be an IP, a FP or a T."