Personal Or Technical ???

[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?