The other two are correct in their calls. The flagrant foul would have to be more savage in nature and intended to hurt the individual fouled. The intentional foul is designed to halt play, but is not savage nor intended against the individual player. Granted that is hair splitting, but it does help me to determine the intent of the foul. If the player you saw intended to actually hurt his/her opponent, then the flagrant was the right call. That is why a flagrant foul carries with it the ejectin penalty for the savage nature of the infraction. I hope that helps.
Matt
|
Sun Jan 14, 2001, 07:20pm
Hybrid Mode
