order of calling fouls and other questions

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Well, that's easy. The difference is there's no such thing as an intentional flagrant foul.

You can have an intentional personal foul or intentional technical foul.

You can have an flagrant personal foul or a flagrant technical foul.

You cannot have an intentional flagrant foul (regardless of whether it's personal or technical).

That all sounds great. The point is if you have a flagrant foul you are ejecting someone. Whether you call it a technical, intentional or anything, you have to eject someone. I have only called one flagrant foul in my entire career and I did not worry what the actual definition of that foul. To me this is more of a test issue than how you apply the rule.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

What if it is a intentional flagrant double dribble?

The point is that you have to decide intential or flagrant. An "intentional flagrant" foul is contratictory; one requires ejection the the other does not. If a coach that knows the rules hears you say intentional, he's wonder why you're now telling him to remove the player...and he'll have a good point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What if it is a intentional flagrant double dribble?

The point is that you have to decide intential or flagrant. An "intentional flagrant" foul is contratictory; one requires ejection the the other does not. If a coach that knows the rules hears you say intentional, he's wonder why you're now telling him to remove the player...and he'll have a good point.

When have you meet a coach that knows the difference? If they know the rules that well, they know what flagrant means. It is not about the language, it is about what you called and what you are going to do after the foul.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

When have you meet a coach that knows the difference? If they know the rules that well, they know what flagrant means. It is not about the language, it is about what you called and what you are going to do after the foul.

Peace

This is eactly WHY coaches get confused on things. They see some officials winging it by using improper terminology. Then the next time when someone does it right, they don't understand. Saying improper terminology is ok if you look good doing it and the result is right is part of the problem with coaches. They want consistency both in the calls and what the calls are called. Made up terms only guarantee inconsistency.

[JRutledge]

If you say so.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The point is if you have a flagrant foul you are ejecting someone. Whether you call it a technical, intentional or anything, you have to eject someone.

Well, that all sounds great, too. So then, I guess it's all right with you if refs start using the phrase "over the back foul". Because whether you call it a "push" or "over the back", you have to call the foul. Right? Since it doesn't matter what we call things now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Well, that all sounds great, too. So then, I guess it's all right with you if refs start using the phrase "over the back foul". Because whether you call it a "push" or "over the back", you have to call the foul. Right? Since it doesn't matter what we call things now.

I disagree with you. The term "over the back" suggests there is something illegal about being behind a player on a rebound or other situations that the rules do not cover. If I call a flagrant foul on someone, it does not matter what you consider it to be, the application is the same (at least to me it does not).

I called a flagrant foul on a screen during a tournament in 2005. I went up with the intentional foul signal because I did not know what else to do. I just knew the act was intentional if nothing else was called. My partner saw the same thing and ran to me and said, "You are going to eject him right?" I agreed with him and I went to the table and announced a flagrant foul, gave the umpire thumb and no one said a word. All the coach wanted to know was what his player did. The coach removed the player from the rest of the tournament. The coach apologized to the tournament director and not a peep was said to me or anyone about the call or mechanic used. I later asked a bunch of other officials as to what signal we were supposed to use and how we report it. No one seemed to know either and they said they might do the same thing I did. So if you apply the rule properly, it does not matter what you call it. Same goes for a false double foul and all the situations surrounding a false double foul. It only matters how you apply the rule properly not exactly what you call it in this situation. A flagrant foul is a flagrant foul.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I disagree with you. The term "over the back" suggests there is something illegal about being behind a player on a rebound or other situations that the rules do not cover.

So the rules do cover an intentional flagrant foul?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

So the rules do cover an intentional flagrant foul?

Do they? You tell me.

Peace

[Dribble]

JRut, I think the fact that there isn't a mechanic for a flagrant foul doesn't mean that you can "call" it anything you want. In fact, to signal it with the intentional foul signal is incorrect unless at that moment you were going to assess an intentional foul rather than the flagrant. My understanding for reporting a flagrant foul is that you signal a foul with your fist and report the flagrant to the table, which leads to the ejection of the player.

Just because the coaches may not know the difference between an intentional and a flagrant foul doesn't mean that we should muddy the water ourselves. I think you may have mistakenly made that post earlier with regards to the "intentional flagrant foul" and now you're trying to back it up.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dribble

JRut, I think the fact that there isn't a mechanic for a flagrant foul doesn't mean that you can "call" it anything you want. In fact, to signal it with the intentional foul signal is incorrect unless at that moment you were going to assess an intentional foul rather than the flagrant. My understanding for reporting a flagrant foul is that you signal a foul with your fist and report the flagrant to the table, which leads to the ejection of the player.

So what you are saying is that we have to call it exactly as the rulebook says or we cannot apply the rule properly? Interesting concept, I will have to remember that next time.

Originally Posted by Dribble

Just because the coaches may not know the difference between an intentional and a flagrant foul doesn't mean that we should muddy the water ourselves. I think you may have mistakenly made that post earlier with regards to the "intentional flagrant foul" and now you're trying to back it up.

Which is it? Do the coaches know the difference or do they care if you apply the rules properly?

Also I know there is no such thing as an "Intentional flagrant foul." That is what the rulebook is for, so you can look these things up. All fouls are either Personal or Technical. Find out the difference and apply the rules properly. I have called a false double foul and I never used the term "false double foul" as the explanation. People here double foul they think all double fouls are the same. If it floats your boat, call it what you like.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dribble

JRut, I think the fact that there isn't a mechanic for a flagrant foul doesn't mean that you can "call" it anything you want. In fact, to signal it with the intentional foul signal is incorrect unless at that moment you were going to assess an intentional foul rather than the flagrant. My understanding for reporting a flagrant foul is that you signal a foul with your fist and report the flagrant to the table, which leads to the ejection of the player.

I know a couple college-level officials who have advised to come out with crossed-armed initially if you think you may be ruling a personal foul as flagrant. Their reasoning being that in the case of most flagrant personal fouls the foul will be intentional in nature and you'll have a few moments to process the information in your head and decide between intentional and flagrant before reporting. The "few moments" being the time you are staying with players to ensure nothing further happens.

I've never had occassion to call a flagrant foul so I don't know what my natural reaction would be mechanic-wise.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do they? You tell me.

I already did. But you don't want to admit that you simply mis-spoke. No biggie. I won't belabor the point.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

I already did. But you don't want to admit that you simply mis-spoke. No biggie. I won't belabor the point.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Also I know there is no such thing as an "Intentional flagrant foul."

Hmmmmm......Really.

Peace