Flagrant AND Intentional?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In laymen's terms, I would say that the word flagrant trumps the word intentional. Thus the penalty is raised. flagrant=intentional + ejection
Which brings to mind another question. I should know this but I don't. Has the provision to call a foul intentional for excessive contact even when playing the ball always been there, or is it a recent or fairly recent editorial change? My idea is that, whenever this part appeared, it was done to give a little wiggle room when B1 knocks A1's shot into the rafters, but on the way down plants A1 into the wall. "Gee, that should be something besides just two free throws, but I hate to kick this kid out." A compromise, if you will.

With all this in mind, can anyone say where the line is to be drawn between contact that is "excessive," but not "violent or savage?"

The line is the same as the one between playing the ball and playing the person. If you're trying to block the shot and the shooter gets whammed, intentional. If you're trying to wham the shooter, flagrant.

As far as I know the use of intentional for excessive contact has been there for the last 8 years (my total tenure). I don't know when the distinction was made.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

If you're trying to block the shot and the shooter gets whammed, intentional. If you're trying to wham the shooter, flagrant.

Not necessarily. We've already established that no certain intent is necessary for a foul to be called flagrant. In the situation I posted earlier in this thread, I genuinely believe that the player's intent was to stop a shot, nothing more. Trouble is, he missed. He did indeed wham the shooter. Was it excessive contact, or was it of a violent or savage nature? Partner and I both had good looks, but he made one call while I would have made the other.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not necessarily. We've already established that no certain intent is necessary for a foul to be called flagrant. In the situation I posted earlier in this thread, I genuinely believe that the player's intent was to stop a shot, nothing more. Trouble is, he missed. He did indeed wham the shooter. Was it excessive contact, or was it of a violent or savage nature? Partner and I both had good looks, but he made one call while I would have made the other.

I feel free to say this, knowing that others will chime in if they think I am wrong. I'm not 100% sure about this, but I've always thought that a flagrant foul was something that happened out of anger or disrespect. No matter how rough, an honest attempt to play the ball should be considered as intentional at the worst.

Am I incorrect in this, Jurassic, or Tony? Can't ask Chuck, although I suppose he could e-mail me, or send a PM. Nevada? Jeff?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I've always thought that a flagrant foul was something that happened out of anger or disrespect. No matter how rough, an honest attempt to play the ball should be considered as intentional at the worst.

Am I incorrect in this, Jurassic, or Tony?

You're incorrect. Just read rule 4-19-4.

"A flagrant foul may be a personal foul...of a violent or savage nature".

"If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking and kneeing"

It's always a judgement call by each individual official, but playing the ball isn't a determining factor as to whether a foul might be flagrant or not. How you played the ball is. If you play the ball and while doing so put a shooter into a basket support and injured them, you should be sitting down every time imo.