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.  [/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.
Wed Aug 10, 2005, 12:49pm
Hybrid Mode
