INTENTIONAL VS. FLAGRANT FOULS

[SIG NOTTINGHAM]

After studying Rule 4, sec. 19, articles 3 and 4 I am still confused about the difference between intentional and flagrant fouls. Does an intentional foul result in ejection? What is the proper signal for an intentional foul
and what is the correct penalty? The other night in a mens
recreation game the following occurred: Close game, very
competitive league, player A1 drives the lane, player B1
grabs A1 to prevent the shot, not making much, if any ,play on the ball in my opinion. He knocks A1 down and falls with and on him. A1 jumps up and is very upset. I called a flagrant foul and B1 was ejected. Was that the right call?

[BktBallRef]

An intentional foul does not carry an ejection as part of the penalty. The signal is both fists raised and the wrists crossed. A flagrant foul does require an ejection. A flagrant foul can be intentional, if it's during a live ball, or technical if it's during a dead ball or is unspotsmanlike.

There's no way to tell if you made the proper call or not. It was definitely intentional. Flagrant, in this case, is in the eye of the beholder.

[co2ice]

If a player grabs another without making a play for the ball then an intentional foul has to be called. You describe B1 as knocking A1 to the floor and falling on him. Only you can determine by the amount of action and reaction by B1 if you made the correct call. The signal for an intentional foul is to cross your arms at the wrists above your head, after signaling a foul and bird dogging the violator. The manual doesn't show a signal for a flagarent foul but ejection is automatic when called. In either case A1 would recieve two free throws and the ball oob at the spot nearest where the infraction occurred.

[Edited by co2ice on Jan 14th, 2001 at 05:32 PM]

[MattRef]

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

[SIG NOTTINGHAM]

Thank you all for the clarification on intentional v.s. flagrant fouls. That clears up all my questions. The foul should probably have been only intentional and not flagrant.

[Rookie]

I had a play the other night, Soph boys, I was working the first half alone, and there was stuff going on all over the court, the players knew I could only see so much, and they were taking advantage of it. A player had a fast break, and the defender went up and bear hugged the guy, I called a flagrant hoping to get some control over the game, that is when my partner showed up. It should have been an intentional, but I was wearing very thin.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Rookie
I had a play the other night, Soph boys, I was working the first half alone, and there was stuff going on all over the court, the players knew I could only see so much, and they were taking advantage of it. A player had a fast break, and the defender went up and bear hugged the guy, I called a flagrant hoping to get some control over the game, that is when my partner showed up. It should have been an intentional, but I was wearing very thin.

Unless he was attempting to hurt the shooter, why would you call a flagrant foul? Or do you understand the difference now?

[Rookie]

I will say that I wasn't 100% clear on the difference then, but I felt if I didn't call that as a flagrant, I would have no control over the game, working alone.

[PAULK1]

Glad you are clear on the difference now, but most leauges
or conferences have pretty severe penalties for players who are ejected due to flagrant fouls (game supensions). If they are deserved call them, if not remember the consequences.