Why would a hard push be a flagrant foul? Intentional I'd agree with, but rarely flagrant. Flagrant must truely be outrageous or with the intent to harm. A hard push just may be an overboard failed attempt to play basketball.

Now, grabbing the player and slamming them to the floor...flagrant.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jun 30th, 2005 at 09:33 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

In the situation that Lukealex describes, "A1 is talking, being cocky, well deserving of a T. He gets one, but right after the T was called B1 pushed A1 hard, so the flagrent was given to B1.", the push occurred while the ball was dead, and I would not interpret that as an attempt to play basketball...I should have clarified my question, in regards to the ball being dead.

In the situation that Lukealex describes, "A1 is talking, being cocky, well deserving of a T. He gets one, but right after the T was called B1 pushed A1 hard, so the flagrent was given to B1.", the push occurred while the ball was dead, and I would not interpret that as an attempt to play basketball...I should have clarified my question, in regards to the ball being dead.

[/B][/QUOTE]Not sure what you're getting at here. If the ball is dead and you call a contact foul, then that foul must be either an intentional or flagrant technical foul by definition. It's up to the calling official's judgement as to what type of T he's gonna choose.

Not sure what you're getting at here. If the ball is dead and you call a contact foul, then that foul must be either an intentional or flagrant technical foul by definition. It's up to the calling official's judgement as to what type of T he's gonna choose. [/B][/QUOTE]

What she's getting at is to agree with you and disagree with Camron. He said this could just be a rough and tumble basketball play. She's saying the ball was dead, so there's no way this is basketball. She's saying that since the ball is dead, the foul has to be either intentional or flagrant, as you said. Doesn't it feel good to have someone on your side for once?

What she's getting at is to agree with you and disagree with Camron. He said this could just be a rough and tumble basketball play. She's saying the ball was dead, so there's no way this is basketball. She's saying that since the ball is dead, the foul has to be either intentional or flagrant, as you said. Doesn't it feel good to have someone on your side for once? [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks Juulie...you said it much better than I did :)

What she's getting at is to agree with you and disagree with Camron. He said this could just be a rough and tumble basketball play. She's saying the ball was dead, so there's no way this is basketball. She's saying that since the ball is dead, the foul has to be either intentional or flagrant, as you said. Doesn't it feel good to have someone on your side for once? [/B][/QUOTE]Now I'm not sure of what <b>you're</b> getting at. :)

Camron said above that it should be an intentional technical foul in most cases, but that it could be flagrant also. That's a valid opinion. If VA is saying the same thing, then she's agreeing with Camron, not disagreeing with him. Fwiw, that's basically what I said too.


To clarify what I'm saying----- the call is HTBT and it's up to the calling official's judgement. The official has got 3 options on this play re:the push by B1:
- Ignore the dead-ball contact as incidental
- Call the dead ball contact an intentional technical foul
- Call the dead ball contact a flagrant technical foul

The person that blew the whistle gets to choose between Doors 1,2&3.

Now, if the official calls B1's dead ball push a flagrant foul, then another option comes up--- which is what everybody was discussing, I think(I'm not sure anymore). Anywhoo... If B1's foul is a flagrant T, the oficial now has the option of calling A1's original T a flagrant T for inciting a fight(R4-18-2). Or not.

Ummm, I dunno whatinthehell I'm missing here, but I do know that VA and Camron are both saying the same thing above--the foul could be an intentional or flagrant T. How did that become a disagreement? :confused: