The Official Forum
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   flagrant foul in girls high school (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/21680-flagrant-foul-girls-high-school.html)

Lotto Wed Aug 10, 2005 04:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by Lotto
I'm still not quite clear on the situation. Was there one foul or two? Your first post makes it seem like one foul, but later you talk about the "first" and "second" foul. If there were two fouls, when did they happen and what, if anything, happened in between them?
There was one foul, two different plays.
Now I'm really confused! http://wisoftware.host.sk/images/msn6/emoticons/9.jpg

assignmentmaker Wed Aug 10, 2005 04:44pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Assuming this was rightly called an intentional personal foul . . . too hard.

(If the additional property 'flagrant' were added, player tossed.)
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.
Well, ... is an unintentional flagrant foul incidental contact?
Flagrant incidental contact?

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

If a dog has four legs and you call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have?

Jurassic Referee Wed Aug 10, 2005 05:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Assuming this was rightly called an intentional personal foul . . . too hard.

(If the additional property 'flagrant' were added, player tossed.)
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.
Well, ... is an unintentional flagrant foul incidental contact?
Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that. :D
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.
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. [/B]
If a dog has four legs and you call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have? [/B][/QUOTE]Good, you're finally seeing my point.The rulebook won't let you call legs "tails" like you've been trying to do.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 10th, 2005 at 06:39 PM]

devdog69 Wed Aug 10, 2005 07:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by devdog69
Quote:
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...
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]
Thanks for editing the calling me an *** part, I appreciate that. Yes, maybe I am having a bad week. My grandmother has been very ill, sorry to have visited this forum to get away from other things.

BktBallRef Wed Aug 10, 2005 07:56pm
Just noticed that you've snapped at a few people, not normally your style.

Hope grandma's feeling better.

Dan_ref Wed Aug 10, 2005 08:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devdog69
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by devdog69
Quote:
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...
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]
Thanks for editing the calling me an *** part, I appreciate that. Yes, maybe I am having a bad week. My grandmother has been very ill, sorry to have visited this forum to get away from other things.
I hope she's feeling better soon.

Jurassic Referee Wed Aug 10, 2005 08:45pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by devdog69
Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
Quote:
Originally posted by devdog69
Quote:
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...
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]
Thanks for editing the calling me an *** part, I appreciate that. Yes, maybe I am having a bad week. My grandmother has been very ill, sorry to have visited this forum to get away from other things.
I hope she's feeling better soon.
Hang in there, Devon. Hope everything turns out OK.

mick Wed Aug 10, 2005 09:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by devdog69
My grandmother has been very ill, sorry to have visited this forum to get away from other things.
Having a good thought for her, Devon.

assignmentmaker Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:17pm
You almost got it . . .
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Assuming this was rightly called an intentional personal foul . . . too hard.

(If the additional property 'flagrant' were added, player tossed.)
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.
Well, ... is an unintentional flagrant foul incidental contact?
Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that. :D
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.
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.
If a dog has four legs and you call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have? [/B]
Good, you're finally seeing my point.The rulebook won't let you call legs "tails" like you've been trying to do.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 10th, 2005 at 06:39 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Let's agree that you win.

rainmaker Thu Aug 11, 2005 01:41am
Re: You almost got it . . .
 
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[. 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.
If a dog has four legs and you call its tail a leg, how many legs does it have?
Good, you're finally seeing my point.The rulebook won't let you call legs "tails" like you've been trying to do.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Aug 10th, 2005 at 06:39 PM]
Let's agree that you win.
What, already? But you haven't even finished 3 pages yet!

Jurassic Referee Thu Aug 11, 2005 02:09am
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
[/B]
Let's agree that you win. [/B][/QUOTE]Jeff, it was never a matter of trying to "win" anything. It was a matter of using the proper rule and terminology.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35am.
Page 3 of 3 12 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1