flagrant foul in girls high school - Page 3

Lotto · #31 (**permalink**) 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!

assignmentmaker · #32 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 10, 2005, 04:44pm

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 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.

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

Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that.

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 · #33 (**permalink**) 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 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.

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

Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that.

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 · #34 (**permalink**) 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.

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 · #35 (**permalink**) 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 · #36 (**permalink**) 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.

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 · #37 (**permalink**) 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.

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 · #38 (**permalink**) 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 · #39 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 10, 2005, 10:17pm

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 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.

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

Flagrant incidental contact?

You can go to jail for that.

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 · #40 (**permalink**) Thu Aug 11, 2005, 01:41am

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 · #41 (**permalink**) 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.