flagrant foul in girls high school

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by mick
This whole deal looks like a shooting foul followed by a hard intentional foul after the miss-n-foul.
Two separate actions.
Two shots to shooter for the miss and two more for the second action [possibly by the same defender].


mick

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.

[Nevadaref]

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

Where's Mr. Grammar Guy?

[devdog69]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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...
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.

[devdog69]

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

That's easy for you to say...

[Nevadaref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by devdog69

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I base...
I'm basing...
I've based...
...

Perhaps Tony was freebasing when he wrote that.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
The correct ruling should have been a personal foul, not a technical foul He could certainly rule the foul either flagrant or intentional if he chose to. But the foul should have been personal, as it was a live ball, contact foul. 2 FTs by the shooter and the ball for the shooter's team would be the correct penalty. No other player would be allowed to shoot.

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

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

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

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

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
[/B]

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 add 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 no no such foul called an flagrant intentional personal foul though.

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

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

(If the additional property 'flagrant' were added, player tossed.) [/B]

You can't add 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 no no such foul called an flagrant intentional personal foul though.

[/B][/QUOTE]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick

You can't add 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 no no such foul called an flagrant intentional personal foul though.

[/B]

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

You can go to jail for that.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by devdog69

That's easy for you to say...

Having a bad week, Devon?

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

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]

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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

Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that. [/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.

[mick]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
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.

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

mick

[assignmentmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mick
[B]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker


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

mick

Are you making fun of my typing? Have at it! I wasn't propared for that . . .

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Flagrant incidental contact?

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

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.