Just venting......

[Just Curious]

I just finished a 2nd round playoff game a few hours ago. Even after a 2 hour drive home, I'm still a little annoyed by intentional fouls. Team A... 4 out of the starting 5 are freshman, none are probably over 5' 6", all are lightning fast. Team B... Starting 5 are all seniors, none are under 5' 6", average speed.
Late in the 4th quarter, with Team A in the lead, the laws of Physics came into play. F=MA.... A1 runs into a legal screen and is floored hard. This set the crowd off. Nothing wrong short of viewing this 90 lb young lady laying on the floor after running into a brick wall she didn't see. 3 minutes later she has gotten enough air back into her lungs to get up and get off the floor.
Then come the intentionals... Team A comes right back with a steal and A2 drives only to have Team B take her into the wall by a 2 handed shove to the lower back on the lay-in. The crowd didn't care for this one either. Then with 50 seconds left, the 2nd intentional comes with an attempt to get Team A to the line, with a 2 handed shove to the stomach that once again floors B hard. Fans are now on their feet coming out of the stands to the edge of the court....
No brawl... just a rough game. Sometimes I wonder about the differences between what we see and call as intentional fouls and someone just punching another player.....

ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

License to hurt someone????

jc

[KDM]

An 'intentional' foul that causes a player to be "floored" probably, in most cases, is FLAGRANT. Pushes to the back or stomach would be considered as intentional since there is no attempt to play the ball, but if the force was strong enough to 'floor' the player, then it becomes flagrant.

[Hawks Coach]

It's tough when you have teams of different sizes. Small players go flying on legal plays, and fly harder on normal fouls than would players that equal the size of the opponents.

1. Legal screen, no problem, but you know the crowd will be upset - can't let that influence your thinking on future calls.

2. Two - handed shove hard into the wall on a lay-in, I'd have to see it but it sure sounds flagrant. But make the call based on what happened on that play on the court, not because the crowd is already mad about play 1.

3. B floors A (obviously I assume that's what you meant) hard, again I'd have to see. If it was clearly intentional and that hard, probably flagrant again.

Could have had two disqualifications, and one DQ (if it was warranted) may have been enough to prevent the second hard foul.

[JRutledge]

Hawk, how can you say these are flagrant fouls. Just because someone puts someone on the floor, does not mean that the foul is flagrant at all. You could have a flagrant foul and not have anyone hit the floor. That is not the criteria for a flagrant. You can have a player get fouled and it would be just an intentional.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
It's tough when you have teams of different sizes. Small players go flying on legal plays, and fly harder on normal fouls than would players that equal the size of the opponents.

Coach -- This is exactly right!! I do think that the larger and stronger players need to adjust and if someone goes flying on a foul, it should be considered as rough play, possibly flagrant. To me this seems reasonable. I called a foul flagrant one time (my first) which was just exactly in this description. The foul-er was bigger and stronger, and the foul-ee didn't see it coming. It was a two-handed shove in the side away from the ball, and the body went flying, and then skidding, about 10 feet total distance. I got into big trouble for this. Several people with lots of reffing experience and study said I should have just called it intentional. To me, the foul-er didn't make any adjustment for the opponent's personal characteristics, and I felt she was being out of control. But my betters thought that I should have called the first one intentional to get the message across, and see if she learned her lesson. Anyway, I learned my lesson!!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Coach -- This is exactly right!! I do think that the larger and stronger players need to adjust and if someone goes flying on a foul, it should be considered as rough play, possibly flagrant. To me this seems reasonable. I called a foul flagrant one time (my first) which was just exactly in this description. The foul-er was bigger and stronger, and the foul-ee didn't see it coming. It was a two-handed shove in the side away from the ball, and the body went flying, and then skidding, about 10 feet total distance. I got into big trouble for this. Several people with lots of reffing experience and study said I should have just called it intentional. To me, the foul-er didn't make any adjustment for the opponent's personal characteristics, and I felt she was being out of control. But my betters thought that I should have called the first one intentional to get the message across, and see if she learned her lesson. Anyway, I learned my lesson!! [/B]

I agree with you in theory, but rainmaker, you should only call flagrant fouls when a player is truely trying to hurt another player. If all the player did was push the ball handler, calling an intentional foul is probably the better choice. I have never called a flagrant foul and hope I never have to. Actually, I have never seen one called either. I really think the reaction of the player that foul is another indication of whether it is intentional or flagrant, but I really do not have all the answers here.

[Mike Burns]

I had a game this year that got a little ugly towards the end. Big rivalry game, and Home team is going to loose. A is on a break-away when B not only intentionaly fouls from behind (Player B arms are coming down on As shoulders), but then B gives a shove in the back which sends A into the padding against the wall. In my opinion there was NO QUESTION that this was not only intentional, but flagrant as well. Partner acctually made the call, as he was L and I was T, but I agree 100%).

I think the difference has to be not only the aggressiveness of the foul. As stated before, you can have a hard foul and it not be flagrant or even intentional. Or you could have a flagrant foul and no one hit the floor or get hurt. I think you must make a judgement as to the intent to cause harm to the player. Kind of like throwing a punch is flagrant, whether it lands or not the intent was there.

Mike

[Edited by Mike Burns on Feb 18th, 2001 at 10:20 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

As I re-read my post, I see that I came out troo strong on the flagrant side, without intending to be thee. I really did mean to say that you have to see it to call it. And, without having seen the fouls, I think that the first was probably more likely flagrant than the second. That one is possibly intentional, and also possibly common but hard. With the second, my only point was that if the first really was flagrant and called that way, the second is probably not as hard a foul.

But I strongly feel from the description of the first, without seeing it, that a two-handed shove into a wall on a layup at high speed is precisely the kind of foul they had in mind for flagrant. One like that should require no warning.

Jrut, the only point I really disagree with you on is your statement that a player must be trying to hurt another player. That requires intent, the rule clearly states that a flagrant foul "may or may not be intentional." It is a "violent or savage" foul. If you do have an intentional foul, and the player chooses to shove into the wall rather than grab or take out the arms to prevent a good shot, then that player could have made a violent or savage foul, and even intended to commit the foul.

[Brian Watson]

Like Hawk said, it is a see to know play, but if a plyer was thrown, or two hannded pushed into a wall, that starts walking the line to flagrant. It might have just been hard foul, but now someone could get hurt.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Mike Burns
In my opinion there was NO QUESTION that this was not only intentional, but flagrant as well

There is no such foul as a flagrant intentional (or the other way around). You would have one of 3 options here:

(1) Intentional personal foul for the 'pull-down.' - 2 shots for A1, B1 gets a personal foul.

(2) Flagrant personal foul for the entire action. - 2 shots for A1, B1 gets ejected.

(3) Intentional personal foul for the 'pull-down' plus a flagrant technical for the push into the wall. - 2 shots for A1, 2 shots for any A player, A ball at half-court, B1 gets ejected.

[Mike Burns]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

There is no such foul as a flagrant intentional (or the other way around). You would have one of 3 options here:

(1) Intentional personal foul for the 'pull-down.' - 2 shots for A1, B1 gets a personal foul.

(2) Flagrant personal foul for the entire action. - 2 shots for A1, B1 gets ejected.

(3) Intentional personal foul for the 'pull-down' plus a flagrant technical for the push into the wall. - 2 shots for A1, 2 shots for any A player, A ball at half-court, B1 gets ejected.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in what I meant by that. I was only making the comparison between the two types of fouls we are discussing here. We went with option #2.

However, you do make a good point in the fact that the two types of fouls are completely seperate.

[Edited by Mike Burns on Feb 19th, 2001 at 02:21 PM]