The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 18, 2005, 09:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: St. Louis Missouri
Posts: 308
Send a message via AIM to fonzzy07
Exclamation

I am a new official, last year i worked about 30 games in a recreational league. I am gearing up for my second season. One question that has bothered me since last year is what is the diffrence between and intentional foul and a flagrent foul.
Situation
last year A1 had the ball on a breakaway and was going in for the layup, B1 pushed him from behind. I gave B1 a flagrent foul. However for the rest of the game a fan would not get off my back, he claimed that it should have been an intentional foul. Did I make the right call, and what is the diffrence?
thanks
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 18, 2005, 10:07pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,988
All depends on the severity of the action. An intentional foul is similar to a flagerant except that there is no ejection involved, unless it's #5 for that player.

In the situation you describe I'd have to see the play to give an ruling, but in that generic situation unless there was an intent to injure, I'd go with intentional over flagrent.
__________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 18, 2005, 10:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 566
Send a message via AIM to brandan89 Send a message via Yahoo to brandan89
Quote:
Originally posted by fonzzy07
I am a new official, last year i worked about 30 games in a recreational league. I am gearing up for my second season. One question that has bothered me since last year is what is the diffrence between and intentional foul and a flagrent foul.
Situation
last year A1 had the ball on a breakaway and was going in for the layup, B1 pushed him from behind. I gave B1 a flagrent foul. However for the rest of the game a fan would not get off my back, he claimed that it should have been an intentional foul. Did I make the right call, and what is the diffrence?
thanks
Im guessing that fan was going for the team that you called the foul against? Its over with now, you made your call, stick with it. Im sure it was good.
__________________
Brandan M. Trahan
Lafayette, LA
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 19, 2005, 02:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
To get this call right, you have to know the definitions of an intentional foul and a flagrant foul.

They are given in rule 4.
The definition of an intentional foul was slightly changed this year by the NFHS to improve clarity.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are 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.


4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.



As you described the play in your post above, I'd have to say that you were incorrect and that you should indeed have called an intentional personal foul and not a flagrant personal foul. The push from behind was not a legitimate attempt to play the ball, neutralized that opponent's obvious advantageous position out in front for the lay-in, and may also have been excessive contact against a shooter. Those criteria are listed in the intentional foul definition. Furthermore, the NFHS wrote the following in this season's Points of Emphasis regarding intentional fouls:
"A. Anytime in the game. Acts that neutralize an opponent’s obvious advantageous position and must be deemed intentional include:
• Excessive contact on any player attempting a shot
• Grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored
• Grabbing and holding a player from behind or away from the ball
These are “non-basketball” plays and must be considered intentional fouls anytime they occur during a game."

What I put in bold seems to be the play you are asking about. It does not sound as if the push from behind was of a violent or savage nature, nor was it a striking, kicking, or kneeing action as listed in the definition of a flagrant foul.


Kudos to you for inquiring about this since you were unclear. Asking the right questions and being willing to learn will make you a better official. Hopefully, reading this and doing a little thinking will give you a solid understanding of the difference between these two types of fouls. Best wishes.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Dec 19th, 2005 at 06:59 AM]
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 19, 2005, 12:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Unless I'd heard that particular player threatening that particular opponent with bodily harm, or if the shooter landed on her nose and had to be rushed to the hospital, I'd have called it intentional. Flagrant contact fouls during play, have to do with fighting and the desire to injure.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 19, 2005, 12:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Unless I'd heard that particular player threatening that particular opponent with bodily harm, or if the shooter landed on her nose and had to be rushed to the hospital, I'd have called it intentional. Flagrant contact fouls during play, have to do with fighting and the desire to injure.
Even with the shooter landing on her nose, I wouldn't call it flagrant without judging there was intent to injure. Accidents and injuries happen, occassionally with no contact at all, sometimes when there is contact but no foul. That a foul results in an injury is not, IMHO, cause for an automatic flagrant.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Dec 19, 2005, 12:48pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Flagrant contact fouls during play, have to do with fighting and the desire to injure.
Not necessarily. 4.19.4 It may or may not be intentional.
Picture a desperate game situation. A1 has a breakaway. B1 knows that if A1 scores the game is over. B1 goes up and makes a wild swipe, (Aw, c'mon ref, he was going for the ball!) but accidentally clotheslines A1 and flips him on his head. B1 is obviously sincerely sorry. He helps A1 up, brushes him off, apologizes profusely. This could still be considered a flagrant foul.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:45am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1