order of calling fouls and other questions
 

Questions pertain to High school rules

Question1: If team a is followed and then immidiately after the whistle is blown team B's coach recieves a techincal foul. Are the fouls shot in the order they were called or is the technical shot first.

Question 2. If a players number is recorded in the score book and the player allowed to enter the game at anytime without a penalty to that team?

Questions 3" when a flagrant call is called on a player is this consiedered an automatic techical foul as well?

I am assuming you meant "fouled."

Yes, they would all be in the order they took place. You shoot the FTs for the foul (if necessary) and then the T. Also the team that was shooting the T FTs will get the ball back.

I am not sure I understand you question. Why would a player not be allowed to enter a game if they are eligible to play or listed in the book? Do you have an example of what you might be asking?

A flagrant foul is a foul that requires an ejection. A flagrant foul is not necessarily a T. You can have a flagrant T, but you can have a regular flagrant foul. All flagrant really means a foul that requires immediate ejection.

Peace

player entering game...
 

IN my previous queston, I will explain what happened. A Players was recorded in the official scorebook. He did not show up for the game until the beginning of the 2nd half. The coach on the other team said that since he showed up late he is allowed to play but the team is chareged a technical foul as a result of him showing up late. is this correct.

Also could some one explain the difference between an intentional, flagragrant and technical flagrant and the penalities for each. I am a little confused on this.

Thanks so much.

If he's in the book, he can come in at any time without penalty. The other coach was either wrong or lobbying for some free shots. The rule book only mentions the score book, we can't know when a player arrived at the game (he could have been taking extra time taping his ankle in the locker room for all we know.)

Intentional foul: A foul against a player where the guilty party is not making any sort of legitimate basketball play on the ball. Examples: Pushing a shooter from behind in the back without even pretending to slap at the ball; or grabbing a player by the jersey to prevent him from taking advantage of his better positioning. This is a judgment call, and also can be applied to an overly hard foul where the player was trying to get the ball. Penalty is two shots and the ball out of bounds at the spot nearest the foul.

Technical foul: A dead ball contact foul, or an unsportsmanlike conduct foul. Penalty, two shots and the ball at midcourt.

Flagrant foul: Can be either personal or technical. "Flagrant" is simply a qualifying term meaning that the player is automatically ejected immediately.

If NFHS rules were being used, then the player can enter the game without penalty. A technical would only apply if the player's name had not been registered in the book before the game. In many independent leagues a technical will be issued for a player who shows up late - that is up to the league organizers.
If I get something wrong here someone will be along to correct me! :)
intentional foul: a foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position... think of this as usually being a foul that is not a play on the ball - for instance, player B1 has a breakaway layup and player A1 dives and successfully trips B1. For an intentional foul, the penalty is two shots and the ball - this will look very much like a technical foul except that the shooter has to be the player who was fouled (B1 in this case)
technical foul: can be any number of things - administrative (name was not in the book, player wore the wrong number, etc.) to personal conduct. For all technical fouls the penalty is two shoots by any player and the ball. A player is not ejected on technical fouls until he/she receives two. Each technical foul also adds one foul to the total count [five] required for a player disqualification.
flagrant foul: this is given for severe personal conduct (could be verbal, physical, etc.) - similar to a technical foul except that the player is ejected. For all flagrant fouls the penalty is two shoots by any player and the ball.

If the player is in the book, the player can play. If the player is not in the book, the player can still play unless there are specific rules with a league or state that says they cannot play. There are no rules I have ever come across that says anything about when a player is "present" to play.

One foul is intentional, the other is a technical. Both fouls require an ejection.

Peace

This is not a true statement, but the rest of your post looks fine.

Only Flagrant Technical fouls follow your statement, for Flagrant Personal fouls the offended player must shoot the FTs unless he is injured.

Thanks Nevadaref!!

I'm not understanding this, quite possibly b/c the original post was a little confusing. But an intentional foul doesn't require an ejection. I know that you know that, so what were you really saying? Obviously, I'm missing your real point.

If both types of fouls are flagrant you are required to have an ejection. He was not asking about a regular intentional foul or regular technical foul. He was asking what the difference between an intentional flagrant and technical flagrant foul.

Peace

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

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

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

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

So the rules do cover an intentional flagrant foul?

Do they? You tell me.

Peace

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.

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.

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

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.

If you say so.

Peace

Question 2. If a players number is recorded in the score book and the player allowed to enter the game at anytime without a penalty to that team?

IAABO Refresher Exam 2005

Question 73. Squad member #45 missed the bus and is not present at the time the squad list and starting lineup must be submitted for team members. During the pregame warmup, the referee counts eleven team members of team A but while checking the book team A has twelve team members listed. Referee informs the coach that the squad member who is not present may not be placed in the book even if he/she will get to the game late. Is the referee correct? Answer: Yes Rule Citation:Rule 3, Section 2, Article 1; Rule 4, Section 34, Article 4

IAABO rules answers and interepretions are NOT official NFHS citations in most of the country. They are their own interpretations, and IAABO has been wrong many times- including this one.

The referee above is <b>NOT</b> correct. THe IAABO answer above is completely <b>wrong</b>. Rule 3-2-1 simply lays out a team's requirements for handing in their roster. There is nothing anywhere in the rules saying that the players have to be physically present at this time.

Lah me......

This was the subject of a VERY lengthy conversation on one of the IAABO Interpreter conference calls this past season. Honestly, I don't remember much of the discussion except for my utter confusion at why it was even an issue. I think Peter Webb's conclusion was that the refresher answer is incorrect. The concensus was that we would do it the way we've always done it, which is to put all the names in and if the kid shows up late, it's not a problem.

I don't see anything in 3-2-1 or 4-34 that excludes a person from being a team member just b/c he's not yet on the court during warm-ups. If anyone else has a strong opinion supporting the refresher answer, I'd like to hear it.

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

I would hope that Peter Webb sent something out to all his constituents acknowledging the error.

Please note that Mr. Elias is the rules interpreter for his IAABO Board.

Whatever you say Chuckie.
 

Hmmmmm......Really. :rolleyes:

Peace

That, and $2.88, will get me a gallon of gas. :)

[QUOTE=ChuckElias] I think Peter Webb's conclusion was that the refresher answer is incorrect. The <font color = red>concensus</font> was that we would do it the way we've always done it, which is to put all the names in and if the kid shows up late, it's not a problem.

[QUOTE]"Con<font color = red >c</font>ensus", Mr. Spelling?

Unfortunately, it looks like Peter Webb didn't let anybody else know that the answer was incorrect. I just took a look at the test anwers posted on the IAABO web site, and they are still stating the <b>WRONG</b> answer for that particular question.

Kinda embarrassing isn't it, when your test answers are wrong? :D

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.

That is why I came out with the intentional foul signal. I did not know what else to do or how to react. I was caught so off guard by what the player did, it was in fact very intentional, but I did not know what to signal with that kind of foul.

Peace

If you look back at all my posts you'll see that I've always advocated calling the game with the intent of the rules, but when that falls in line with the book, then I defer to the book. Simple as that. Does it add to the game if you signal an intentional foul for a flagrant? Not really because those who know (i.e. other officials, evaluators, and maybe coaches and players) will wonder why you then ejected the player. I'll think you changed your call. If I'm evaluating and I you call an intentional foul, but then find out by the PA announcer that the player is tossed, then I'm going to ask you about it differently than if you simply called a flagrant foul at the table.

You're using semantics to justify your response, but as Chuck says, let's not belabor the point.

Not sure exactly how to word this question so bear with me. :confused:

Are flagrant personal fouls always an instantaneous decision in the mind of the official? Meaning should an official know the instant that he blows his whistle that he has a flagrant personal foul as opposed to having just a intentional/hard foul?

What if you come up with just a fist b/c your immediate instinct was flagrant but then after processing all the info in your head (or getting some info from a partner) you then decide you're just going with an intentional? You would then have to explain why you came with a fist and then reported an intentional, right?

Haven't there been times in your career when you came with a fist for a common foul but then changed to an intentional?

IMO, I don't thinks it's that big a deal if for some reason you initially came with crossed-arms. If you end up ruling it a flagrant personal, coaches aren't going to wonder why you ejected his player b/c you will be explaining to the coach as soon as you get done reporting to the table. And in the JuCo conference for which I work, my supervisor (veteran Final-Four official) doesn't want any flagrant fouls reported to the table until you have gone to at least one of your partners first, so the other officials won't be wondering either, they will know b/c you told them.

As far as the evaluator, I would think he would be more concerned that you got the call right (flagrant v. intentional) and getting your version of what you saw on the play.

Didn't you just signal the <b>wrong</b> call? And if you knew that you were gonna toss the player as soon as you made the call, why make the <b>wrong</b> signal in the first place?

You obviously know the difference between an intentional foul and a flagrant foul, but you still went ahead and did it wrong. As you said, any doubt, you coulda just signalled <b>a</b> foul with a fist, and then made up your mind as to the kind. T'other way don't make sense at all to me.

Btw, evaluators surely do wanna see you get the call right. They also wanna see you use the proper procedures while getting the call right, with no indecisivness involved.

I'm with Dribble. Use the correct signal.

We need to make something clear; I do not work for you. So either way it goes what you think about this is not going to change the confusion that I am many have had over this issue.

I have never advocating doing something specific, I just said I had never experienced such a call and did not know what to do. Also the NF does not give much guidance as to what to do or how to make this call. Also when I made the call not one person had a problem with the signal, the call or the way I reported the foul. There were no coaches complaining about the signal and what it meant. NOT ONE PERSON said a word or questioned or was at all confused about what I called or why I made the call. The only person that seemed to have a problem with the sequence was me. The first thing I did was ask around and I got so many answers and opinions.

I also think one of the reasons no one had a problem, there is no acceptable sequence in writing anywhere at least with the NF and NCAA. If I took your opinion to people that I worked for, you have no credibility with them to change their opinion or to validate why the feel the way they do.

I do not know what you claim I am trying to justify. I think you are reading too much into this conversation and what it meant. Oh well, this would not be the first time. ;)

Peace

JR, that was one of the questions I was asking. In your experiences did you know immediately that you had a flagrant? I've never had one and was wondering what everyone's initial reaction was when they have called it in the past?

I've had only one and knew immediately it was flagrant b/c it was a punch to the back of an opponent's head. No X, just a fist and a heave-ho.

Yup, I've tossed a few, and I knew immediately on most of them that they shoulda gone. On a couple, I did think about it quickly before tossing 'em. Any doubt at all, I wouldn't have called the flagrant.

I certainly can agree with delaying any final signal for a second or two- to make sure in your own mind that you really should toss the player. I can't agree with the college-level officials that advised you to come out initially with the intentional foul signal though. I think their reasoning is faulty. The plain ol' raised fist initially is good enough- you can then make up your mind if anything further is needed- i.e. intentional or flagrant.

I have had several ejection situations over the years...one was a fight involving three players, so it was easy...but there was one several years ago where as L (3 person crew) all I saw was the defensive rebounder stagger out after what I thought was a push. I blew the whistle and put my fist up and saw that my T had a double and was closing hard towards the players. We got together and he asked me "Are you going to eject him?" My first thought was Oh sh!t" What did I miss?"...I asked, partner told me that the push was actually a rabbit punch to the kidneys, and I then signalled the ejection right then and there and then went to the table and explained everything...so no, I did not know it was an ejection immediately - that's what partners are for sometimes...

I've also had times when I (or a partner) have something that could be Intentional, and just having a partner say "You going Intentional with that?" is all it takes to help make up our minds...

Someone hit the point on the head (no pun intended)...if it's a flagrant foul, you'll know it's a flagrant foul. The fights are the "easy" ones to call because those are immediate ejections. Flagrants, by definition, are going to be of a "violent and savage nature" (NF 4.19.4) so if you have them, then I'm sure they'll scream out at you.

I don't want to get into the NBA Flagrant 1 (essentially the same as our intentional foul) and Flagrant 2 system, but Raja Bell's clothesline was clearly going to get him tossed according to any ruleset. Same with Udonis Haslem throwing his mouthpiece at Joey Crawford. A "violent" two-hand to the back on a shot = flagrant foul, while a hard push is intentional (this one is more subjective and you'd need to see an actual play to determine which it is).

As JR reiterates, why not just come up with a closed fist and avoid the intentional signal? If you have an intentional foul, then show the signal to the table when you report it otherwise you can tell the table what type of foul you have verbally. If you're sure you're calling an intentional, then by all means show that sign at the scene of the crime.

For my college/university games, we conference on all techicals, intentionals and flagrants (I haven't had any yet). Badnewsref, your supervisor is teaching it the same way I've heard it. Make sure your crew knows what's going on before everyone else. You see the same mechanic done at the pro level. There's always a quick conference with the crew before they report a flagrant.

It's unfortunate that the NFHS and NCAA haven't come out with set mechanics on how to deal with flagrant fouls. I'm assuming it's because it doesn't happen very often, so the need to come up with a signal could just confuse people. Who knows?!? Most times a flagrant foul is a result of a fight, so after the melee you wouldn't need really be standing in the reporting box giving signals to the table. You'd be conferring with the table crew and telling them face-to-face who's gotten ejected.