Flagrant AND Intentional?
 

I've got a rather technical question for the rules mavens here.

Is there such a thing as a flagrant intentional personal foul or a flagrant intentional technical foul?

No.<i></i>

I agree with JR.

But since I'm here. . . Did you get my email, Nevada?

I agree with both of you, but it seems that the NFHS doesn't agree with us!

Makes sense that there isn't one - if a foul is Flagrant, it is beyond intentional, and we're talking ejection here. What possible use would including "intentional" as part of it? As soon as it is flagrant, they're gone, and that is the end of it - in my opinion, of course.

Cite? dot dot dot dot

Your . . . . not working? :p

...working on....??

4-19-4 ... "It may or may not be intentional." and question #27 on the exam. :(

I don\'t have my exam yet, but regarding the rule book quote, I\'d think that just means "the player may or may not have intended to hit someone". It\'s what\'s so confusing about using the word "intentional" to apply to a category of fouls. Too many different meanings that contradict or might contradict each other.

I hear you about the confusion between the basketball rules book definition of a word and the English language usage. Unfortunately, this really shows up on a written exam.

Here is the wording of the question:
True or False?
A flagrant foul may or may not be intentional.

See the problem? :mad:

The answer is TRUE!

Yes, I do see the problem. I agree that it\'s a major problem. The part that especially bothers me is that when I try to make an issue out of this sort of thing, people say, "You\'re over thinking this, it\'s not that difficult. Don\'t read anything into the question. Just take it at face value." Well, excuse me, but what can the answer possibly be without reading something into it?!?!?

I\'d guess that since the rule book wording is that "a flagrant foul may or may not be intentional", the answer to the test question would be True. And if you take the definition of the word "intentional" to be what I said earlier, it makes sense. But then, that\'s reading something in, isn\'t it?

In our association, we\'re now allowed to take the test open book, for this very reason. The thinking goes that if we can come up with the correct answer using the book, we know enough to be able to look things up, and thus will sooner or later be able to do a decent game. It sure cuts down on the arguements.

Thank you bdr, for that very helpful and insightful answer. It addresses so many of my concerns.

Okay, I\'ll go back to being grouchy by myself in the shadows.

PS Did I mention that this was one of the two questions that I missed on the exam? Of course, I\'m not bitter about it. No siree ...:mad: