Sorry for coming in late on this but I have just been glued to the ncaa Indian mascot thread! I mean really, I cannot wait to find out if there are enough god slivers on this earth to convince that zarqawi guy that cutting off heads and blowing up children is a bad thing and even more importantly if Sammy Sosa is an African-American or just a plain old vanilla black man and if his making $50,000 PER DAY elevates him to the privileged class of American society (I sure hope so, if not I'm quitting my ratty job & moving to Cuba to become an apprentice sugar cane cutter).

Where was I? Oh yeah...this seems reasonable, personal foul on a missed shot followed by a T would result in 4 FT shots.

Where's Mr. Grammar Guy? :)

I base...
I'm basing...
I've based...
Any of these would be correct...
No, nothing was said about the shooter being injured, but when you stated that 'no other player would be allowed to shoot' I felt that could be misleading. Any time you have a flagrant foul you are prone to having an injured player. I just want to make sure you don't mislead anybody.

That's easy for you to say...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by devdog69

Quote:

Originally posted by BktBallRef Quote: I'm based my response on what was written, not would else might possibly happen. He said nothing about the shooter being injured. I base... I'm basing... I've based... ...

Perhaps Tony was freebasing when he wrote that. :D

Correct
 

And, if the ball HAD gone in, count the basket.

Re: Correct
 

Assuming this was rightly called an intentional personal foul . . . too hard.

(If the additional property 'flagrant' were added, player tossed.)

Re: Re: Correct
 

Assuming this was rightly called an intentional personal foul . . . too hard.

(If the additional property 'flagrant' were added, player tossed.) [/B][/QUOTE]You can't <b>add</b> any additional properties to an intentional personal foul. You can call this an intentional personal foul. You could also call it a flagrant personal foul if it was judged to meet that rules definition. There is <b>no</b> no such foul called an flagrant intentional personal foul though.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 10th, 2005 at 05:10 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Correct
 

You can't <b>add</b> any additional properties to an intentional personal foul. You can call this an intentional personal foul. You could also call it a flagrant personal foul if it was judged to meet that rules definition. There is <b>no</b> no such foul called an flagrant intentional personal foul though.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, ... is an unintentional flagrant foul incidental contact?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
 

Well, ... is an unintentional flagrant foul incidental contact? [/B][/QUOTE]Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that. :D

Having a bad week, Devon?

I humbly beg your forgiveness. I started the post, was interrupted and then returned to it. Again, I apologize. :rolleyes:

I addressed the situation as it was written. I'm not going to address every possible scenario that could occur. But be my guest, if that's all you have to do.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 10th, 2005 at 10:45 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
 

Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes and no. Conceptually, flagrancy is a property added. The rules takes the approach of saying, in effect, a foul is some particular set of preperties - without organizing them in a hierachry. It's a LOT easier to grasp them in a hierarchy. I have done one for some of the officials I assign and it worked the bomb.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
 

Preperties --> Sounds like an intentional due to certain preparations before, during, or after the contact. :)

mick

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick
[B]Are you making fun of my typing? Have at it! I wasn't propared for that . . .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
 

Yes and no. Conceptually, flagrancy is a property added. The rules takes the approach of saying, in effect, a foul is some particular set of preperties - without organizing them in a hierachry. It's a LOT easier to grasp them in a hierarchy. I have done one for some of the officials I assign and it worked the bomb. [/B][/QUOTE]Yup, and if you take away your bafflegab, the fact still remains that if you add different properties to a certain type of foul, then that foul becomes a completely different type of foul. When you add the properties laid out in R4-19-3 to a common personal foul, then that foul somehow magically turns into something completely different- to wit, an intentional personal foul. If you add the properties of "violence" or "the intent to injure" to a common personal foul or an intentional personal foul, then those fouls also magically morph into something completely different also--called a flagrant personal foul. And please note that none of those "different" types of fouls is something called an "intentional flagrant personal foul". There ain't no such animal.