Hard Foul or Intentional

[SmokeEater]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I don't understand. How is this a foul on an airborne player who is returning to the floor when the opponent obtained position after the player was airborne? How is his supposed to avoid the opponent? Why is the opponent, an offensive player, taking this position to begin with?

Yea your right questioning thatinterpretation. The defender had landed and his momentum continued to carry him forward, at the same time the offensive player stepped forward. The contact occurred and it was called. I saw no need for Intentional or flagrant here. In my second example I think that a flagrant was definately called for at the least. Thanks JR that was a good comment.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by SmokeEater
In my second example I think that a flagrant was definately called for at the least. Thanks JR that was a good comment.

At the least? What could be more severe than "flagrant?"

[SmokeEater]

Ejection....followed by suspension.



[Edited by SmokeEater on Nov 28th, 2005 at 03:59 PM]

[Ref Daddy]

ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by SmokeEater
Ejection....followed by suspension.



[Edited by SmokeEater on Nov 28th, 2005 at 03:59 PM]

"Ejection....followed by suspension" is not a type fo foul, nor a call an official can make.

A flargrant foul leads to ejection (unless you're arguing the semantics of ejection vs. disqualification), and suspension is an administrative issue that's not part of the paying rules and not part of the official's duties.

So, "flagrant" is the "most severe" type of foul.

[SmokeEater]

omg...you say argueing semantics...

Ejection = disqualification

Reported to league followed by suspension of playing privledges = Requested by league for Referees to report all Technical foul situations and Disqualifications on back of game sheet.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by SmokeEater
Ejection = disqualification

That's simply not true. Ejection and disqualification are not equvalent. If a participant is ejected, then he is also disqualified. But the reverse is not true. A player who is disqualified due to committing 5 personal fouls is not ejected. In HS, even if a player is DQ'd for 2 T's, he is not normally ejected. These are definitions, yes, but not mrere semantics. There is an important distinction.

Reported to league followed by suspension of playing privledges = Requested by league for Referees to report all Technical foul situations and Disqualifications on back of game sheet.

That's great, but that's not the FED rule. And even in NCAA rules, the official does not issue the penalty of the suspension. So Bob was telling you what the rule was; not busting your chops.

[SmokeEater]

I understand that difference Chuck. And I appreciate your mentioning that. In the example above it would be the same result for I was not saying that it was about a 5th foul.

I never said the referee would ever have to assess the suspension at any time. I said that one would follow and I had been asked to make the report of the ejection on the back of the game sheet for the league.

This has been great discussion but again I will refer to the original post.

Any comments, remember I am not asking if I made right or wrong call, just where do others draw the line.

Thanks again everyone for your opinions, we all have something to share and learn.