I was coaching a high school rules girls game in NY State this past weekend. B1 fouled A1 who was shooting a field goal attempt.The shot did not go in. Referee called a flagrant foul on B1 and awarded 4 free throws plus the ball(back to team A). I only expected 2 free throws. I missed the exact call because I was tending to a player's injury on my bench.
Was the refree correct to award FOUR free throws under any situation like this? I asked the ref who did not make the call if it was a flagrant Technical foul and he said "yes".

Does a flagrant Technical on a shooting foul (with FG attempt missing) result in 4 free throws?

(The ref awarded 4 free throws on a similair play later in the game too.)

I'd have to know a bit more about the incident, but it sounds like the penalty was administered incorrectly.

If the foul was a flagrant personal foul on the shooter, during the shooting motion, only 2 FT's should have been awarded (unless it was a 3-pt try).

If the foul was a flagrant technical (non-contact) foul on the shooter, then the basket should have been determined based on if it was made/missed. Then 2 FT's should have been awarded to any player on team A.

If a combination occurred - B1 fouled A1, and then B1 committed a flagrant technical foul (she bumps A1 on the arm, then taunts A1 flagrantly), then A1 would recieve 2 FT's for the shot (assuming it missed), and any A team player would be awarded 2 FT's for the flagrant technical.

A gets the ball back either way (because of the flagrant foul). If the flagrant is personal, then A gets the ball nearest the spot of the foul. If the flagrant foul is technical, then A gets the ball at the division line opposite the scorer's table.

Not enough information.
 

You missed the first play <U>and</U> the second play?
I bet you wish you had had a trainer with you.
mick

I hope the the official at least DQ'd the player who committed the flagrant. If the ref got nothing else right, getting that part is essential.

You NEVER get FOUR FTs for a single foul!!!!!!! PERIOD. The most is three on an unsuccessful three point try. In order to get four FTs at least TWO fouls must be charged on the play. So how many team fouls were charged? That will tell you if the official got it right or not.

Also, a LIVE ball contact foul is a personal foul as Mark explained, whether it is flagrant/intentional or not.

edited...
 

The foul was a flagrant personal foul on the shooter, during the shooting motion(not a 3-pt try). The player(s) did not get tossed. I saw the second foul.

I ref in CT. Game was in NY state(Brewster).

Thank you to all.

Re: edited...
 

Not to be to big of a smart-ellic, but why ask then? You already know the answer to your question. ;) I have to assume there is something missing to the story or unfortunately you had an inexperienced official working your girls HS game.

Re: edited...
 

How do you know both fouls were flagrant fouls?
mick

correction ( I am the poster)
 

Fouls were flagrant TECHNICAL(not personal) fouls.

Fouls were when my player fouled their shooter hard.It was NOT a situation where my player taunted the player afterwards to get a Technical.The foul was all in one "action".

I know this because the ref who did not make the call later told me it was a "Flagrant Technical". My daughter/player also told me what happened during the first flagrant (that I did not see because I was facing an injured player on my bench who was just hurt in summer ball).

Bottom line looks like since the field goal attempt did not fall,any player on offensive team should have been able to shoot two FTs. Shooting team then gets the ball at half court.Ref gave Two EXTRA free throws to them twice in a 3 point loss by us.

I'm learning,thanks to your replies.

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.

...unless the fouled player was injured in which case her substitute would shoot the free throws and we would inbound the ball on the baseline, in this case.

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].

:cool:
mick

Re: correction ( I am the poster)
 

By the way, thanks for making that change, CTom.
mick

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?

I based my response on what was written, not what else might possibly happen. He said nothing about the shooter being injured.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 10th, 2005 at 10:01 AM]

There was one foul, two different plays.

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.

Now I'm really confused! http://wisoftware.host.sk/images/msn6/emoticons/9.jpg

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct
 

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?

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]

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.

Just noticed that you've snapped at a few people, not normally your style.

Hope grandma's feeling better.

I hope she's feeling better soon.

Hang in there, Devon. Hope everything turns out OK.

Having a good thought for her, Devon.

You almost got it . . .
 

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.

Re: You almost got it . . .
 

What, already? But you haven't even finished 3 pages yet!

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.