Make the call and the signal

[Jim Henry]

Last minute of a lopsided grade school game. In a rebound situation A1 and B1 go up for the ball. A1’s arm comes down hard on the head B1 and knocks B1 to the floor. Although it was not intentional in my judgment, I see a shot to the head as a flagrant foul. I call a flagrant foul on the A1 player, and he is out of the game.

I made the signal with “crossed arms”, which I assume was the wrong signal. Should I have given the “T” signal? Any way, I immediately went to the table, informed the score keeper and told the coach the player is out. The coach said it was an accident and not intentional. My answer was “any shot to the head and knocking a player down; I am going to call as a flagrant.” Of course the coaches did not like the call.

Your thoughts?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Jim Henry

Last minute of a lopsided grade school game. In a rebound situation A1 and B1 go up for the ball. A1’s arm comes down hard on the head B1 and knocks B1 to the floor. Although it was not intentional in my judgment, I see a shot to the head as a flagrant foul. I call a flagrant foul on the A1 player, and he is out of the game.

I made the signal with “crossed arms”, which I assume was the wrong signal. Should I have given the “T” signal? Any way, I immediately went to the table, informed the score keeper and told the coach the player is out. The coach said it was an accident and not intentional. My answer was “any shot to the head and knocking a player down; I am going to call as a flagrant.” Of course the coaches did not like the call.

Your thoughts?

why would any shot to the head be flagrant? you clearly didnt think it was intentional so just a regular foul --

a flagrant foul is anything that is excessive -- where the contact occurs doesnt matter.

as for the signal -- its a flagrant T -- so the X is for intentional -- the T is for the flagrant t -- or you can do the hokey pokey and turn em all around...

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by deecee

why would any shot to the head be flagrant? you clearly didnt think it was intentional so just a regular foul --

a flagrant foul is anything that is excessive -- where the contact occurs doesnt matter.

as for the signal -- its a flagrant T -- so the X is for intentional -- the T is for the flagrant t -- or you can do the hokey pokey and turn em all around...

It would be a flagrant personal foul. It can't be a technical foul as it was a contact foul while the clock is running.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jim Henry

In a rebound situation A1 and B1 go up for the ball. A1’s arm comes down hard on the head B1 and knocks B1 to the floor. Although it was not intentional in my judgment, I see a shot to the head as a flagrant foul. I call a flagrant foul on the A1 player, and he is out of the game.

I made the signal with “crossed arms”, which I assume was the wrong signal. Should I have given the “T” signal? Any way, I immediately went to the table, informed the score keeper and told the coach the player is out. The coach said it was an accident and not intentional. My answer was “any shot to the head and knocking a player down; I am going to call as a flagrant.” Of course the coaches did not like the call.

Your thoughts?

As Smitty said, it has to be a personal foul of some kind. It can't be a "T". Whether it was a regular, intentional or flagrant personal foul is strictly up to the judgment of the calling official.

Without seeing it, I ain't about to second-guess you. And if you're not second-guessing yourself, then there's nothing to worry about.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Jim Henry

Although it was not intentional in my judgment, I see a shot to the head as a flagrant foul. I call a flagrant foul on the A1 player, and he is out of the game.
[....]
Your thoughts?

I have never called a flagrant foul, but in your case,

A1 and B1 go up for the ball. A1’s arm comes down hard on the head B1 and knocks B1 to the floor.

it looks like a common foul to me, since you wrote that it was not intentional.

I've seen plenty of accidental blows to the head, face, ears, hair, but without judging intention, I just could not go flagrant ( -->suspensions --> paperwork) for your described contact.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jim Henry

Last minute of a lopsided grade school game. In a rebound situation A1 and B1 go up for the ball. A1’s arm comes down hard on the head B1 and knocks B1 to the floor. Although it was not intentional in my judgment, I see a shot to the head as a flagrant foul. I call a flagrant foul on the A1 player, and he is out of the game.

I made the signal with “crossed arms”, which I assume was the wrong signal. Should I have given the “T” signal? Any way, I immediately went to the table, informed the score keeper and told the coach the player is out. The coach said it was an accident and not intentional. My answer was “any shot to the head and knocking a player down; I am going to call as a flagrant.” Of course the coaches did not like the call.

Your thoughts?

Was it "of violent and savage nature?" Doesn't sound like it to me, but you were there.

Was it "excessive contact?" More likely.

As I picture what you describe, I would have either an intentional or common personal foul.

And, to answer your other questions -- there's no specific FED signal for a flagrant foul.

[tomegun]

I'm assuming grade school means up to the 5th grade. I imagine plays like this happen all the time with 5th (and below) graders. It would be tough to have 10 skilled kids on the court at the same time - at this age so funky stuff would probably happen throughout the game.

[refnrev]

I can't see how you had this as flagrant. Is there more to the story than is mentioned in the post? It sounds like a common foul to me.

[rainmaker]

Jim --

It's an interesting quewstion and points to some of the problems with the FED definitions. An intentional foul doesn't have to be intentional. If you look in the definitions, there's a little clause about excessive contact. I think it sounds as though that's what you had. the Flagrant is more for fighting and deliberate harm. In your spot, I"d call intentional, and then explain to the coach that that type of foul is also usable for "excessive contact".

[zebraman]

Rainmaker hit it dead on. The "excessive contact" intentional foul fits your situation perfectly.

From the rulebook definition of an intentional foul: "A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent."

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by deecee

a flagrant foul is anything that is excessive -- where the contact occurs doesnt matter.

Not really. If the contact is excessive, but not "savage" or with an intent to injure, then it's an intentional foul; not a flagrant foul.

as for the signal -- its a flagrant T

As others have pointed out, this is a live ball contact foul, so it cannot be a T. Live ball contact, if judged to be a foul, is always personal in nature.

so the X is for intentional -- the T is for the flagrant t

There's no such thing as an intentional flagrant foul. It's either intentional or flagrant. And not to pile on, but the T does not designate "flagrant", if that's what you were trying to say. You seem to be saying that you should give both the X and the T signals; but I don't think you should ever do that.

[ChuckElias]

For what it's worth, Jim, unless you judged that the kid was trying to take the other kid out of the game, I think you have an intentional personal foul for excessive contact. (IOW, I agree with Juulie.) If, on the other hand, you thought the kid swung the elbow to the other kid's head on purpose, then I have NO problem whatsoever with the flagrant.