Personal Or Technical ???
 

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?

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

Dead wrong.

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

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.

Flagrant And Intentional ...
 

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

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

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

A Venn Diagram On The Forum ...
 

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

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

Changed Or Upgraded ...
 

Agree. Also different throwin spots.

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.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.g...=0&w=232&h=178

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

Funk & Wagnalls ...
 

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?

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.b...=0&w=175&h=164

Reverse Not True ...
 

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.

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

Been There, Done That ...
 

Riddle Me This ...
 

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=300&h=300

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?

It's Two Fouls In One ...
 

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."

It's just my opinion, but, BillyMac, when you go off on these tangents with different factual scenarios, threads get tangled up. It's often hard to know which questions responses are addressing, situation A, B, C or X. Why not start new threads?

Don't need a case. Rule 4 is your friend. A common foul is a personal foul that is neither flagrant nor intentional. And a player control foul is defined as a common foul.

So, if the player with player control commits a flagrant or intentional foul, that foul cannot be common and therefor cannot be a PC foul.

If the player with player control grabbed a defender by the uniform and pulled him out of the way, that's an intentional foul, not a PC foul. Two shots for the player that was fouled and the ball to that team at the spot nearest the foul.

It's apparently affecting your basic basketball senses also. What you typed is an Intentional Foul, as others have pointed out. You're thinking way too hard.

He is arguing with himself again, that is all.

Peace

Perhaps NFHS Case 4.19.6 Situation B?

Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul.

Intentional Foul ...
 

Already knew it, but wanted a citation, and also wanted to continue the discussion comparing generic dictionary adjectives with NFHS rulebook definitions.

Good explanation.

Probably am.

Bingo.

Nice citation, thanks bucky.

Generic Dictionary Adjectives ...
 

Good point, but in this thread there's a common theme of comparing generic dictionary adjectives with NFHS rulebook definitions.

Common themes = common threads = tangles.

Quote, Unquote ...
 

Agree to a point. The key is that I liberally use the "quote" feature to pair questions and answers. But again, you have a point.

And if the try went in, it would count.

Continuous Motion ...
 

If the ball was released before the foul.

I don't think that continuous motion (before the ball is released) applies to a foul by the offense, I believe that the ball becomes dead immediately.

I'm not sure, would like some confirmation.

You been officiating too long to not know that rule. That means you've been calling it wrong for 30 or 40 years.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

When Pigs Fly ...
 

I'm just hedging my bets ("Don't think", "I believe").

The situation is, after all, extremely rare, a ball handler with player control and in that act of shooting (airborne shooter), committing an intentional, flagrant, or technical foul.

Don't see those every day. Never observed one in forty years. Probably die before I see my first.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.j...=0&w=300&h=300

After release, count the basket.

Before the release, don't count the basket.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

If you don't know the rules of continuous motion you need to get back in the rulebook

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Hint: See the definition of an airborne shooter.

Moot Points ...
 

An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.

So in the casebook play it is automatically assumed that the ball has been released (definition of airborne shooter), so the basket will count. My scenario of the ball not being released was a moot point.

I learned that an airborne shooter doesn't begin with the shooter becoming airborne, but only begins when the shot is released by an "airborne shooter" (generic Funk & Wagnalls definition)

Thanks billyu2.

Since the ball has been released in the casebook play, continuous motion is also a moot point (the ball is clearly in flight), but let's explore it anyway.

The ball becomes dead, or remains dead when a foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs. Exception: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when (a foul) occurs by any opponent of a player who has started a try or tap for goal (is in the act of shooting) before the foul occurred, provided time did not expire before the ball was in flight. The trying motion must be continuous and begins after the ball comes to rest in the player’s hand(s) on a try or touches the hand(s) on a tap, and is completed when the ball is clearly in flight. The trying motion may include arm, foot or body movements used by the player when throwing the ball at his/her basket.

Unless I'm missing something (so what else is new?), the ball becomes dead with a foul by the offense, and as I said, continuous motion wouldn't apply (even if the foul was before the release, which it wasn't).

You said you think and you believe and that you were hedging your bets. A veteran should not have to hedge their bets about the definition of continuous motion, especially a veteran of this forum.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Little Bird ...
 

... and it's in a thread in which words in a dictionary that we use in common everyday language don't mean the same as they do in the rulebook. Only after breaking the situation down to two components, and with the help of billyu2, did I discover that I was mistaken about the definition of an airborne shooter (mine was too generic and expansive). I was actually not mistaken about continuous motion (never thought I was, I was just concerned about its impact on the entirety of the situation).

It turns out that the little bird in my head telling me that I shouldn't put my Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval on my full interpretation was correct (my conclusions turned out to be correct, the way I got there was not). Really glad that I didn't bet my house on my full interpretation.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.3...=0&w=300&h=300

I tried to keep up with the thread but fear I have failed. It sounds as if there was a question regarding continuous motion (CM). CM, according to the NFHS definition, only applies when there is a foul on the defense, not the offense. Wasn't the original premise that the discussion was surrounding a foul on the offense? And therefore, CM would not be relevant?

(Isn't this what Raymond stated?)

So, before release, do not count the basket. After the release do not count the basket. Correct?

I am not even sure when that came part of the discussion. This was about whether we can give a flagrant intentional or flagrant technical. Then, as usual, Billy starts arguing with himself, posting over and over things that were not relevant to the original conversation, adding more elements to the play or situation that was not discussed until he brought it up. So if you are confused, we are all confused. :D

Peace

Airborne Shooter ...
 

Continuous motion should never have come into this caseplay at all, not because the foul was by the offense, but because the ball had already been released (caseplay stated airborne shooter and by definition an airborne shooter has already released the ball (thanks billyu2)), thus no continuous motion (continuous motion ends when the ball is clearly in flight).

So we all know who to blame, here's where it all began to deteriorate and fall apart.

Yep, we all know who to blame, BillyMac, because he didn't fully know the rulebook definition of an airborne shooter.

Sure, BillyMac is probably both extremely handsome and very intelligent, but he really needs to work on his Rule 4 definitions.

Arriving late to the party.
 

As I see it there are two different situations that can occur:


Play 1: A1 deliberately throws a Live Ball at B1 and the: a) Ball hits B1 or b) Ball does not hit B1.

Play 2: A1, while holding a Live Ball, uses the Ball to deliberately push B1.


Play 1, in both (a) and (b), is easy to adjudicate: A1 has committed a Technical Foul (TF) for Unsportsmanlike Conduct. It is my opinion that A1's actions meet the definition of a Flagrant Foul (FF). I consider A1's actions no different from swinging a closed fist at B1, whether A1 does or does not make contact with B1, and therefore is a Flagrant Technical Foul (FTF).


Regarding Play 2, I guarantee that if one does an Advanced Search of the Basketball Forum he/she will find that I have been on record numerous times that I consider this a Player Control Foul (PCF). Having said that...

A1) I have seen my share of Third World Plays during my 46 years of officiating but Play 2 is one of them that I have not seen (at least I do not remember seeing).

A2) I used the word "deliberately" in my description of Play 2 because as I have read through this Thread I have decided to re-evaluate my thinking concerning Play 2. I no longer consider this to be a PCF by A1, in fact I do not consider this a PF by A1.

A3) Why have I changed my RULING? A1 is holding a Live Ball and B1 attempts to knock the Ball out of A1's hands and does so by slapping A1's hand while it is in contact with the Ball. By Rule, this is not a PF by B1 because A1's hand is considered to be the Ball and not part of A1's body. Therefore, A1 pushing B1 with the Ball cannot be a PF by A1; it has to be a TF for Unsportsmanlike Conduct and depending upon the severity of A1's push or if B1 retaliates it could be an ITF or a FTF.


MTD, Sr.

I have actually seen this happen on some level, rather early in my career. I saw a player hit a player with the ball making a normal movement and the ball is what hit the player in the face. We did not call anything because the ball handler was not trying to hit the player in the face at all. It was very incidental. The coach wanted us to call a foul, but we did not see it that way unless he was trying to hit the opponent. And that would have only been a Technical foul in our mind.

Peace

Better Never Than Late ...
 

Or It Could Happen In One's First Game ...
 

One officiates long enough and one can see or hear about some crazy things.

These are the stories that veteran officials orally pass down to young'uns around a blazing campfire.