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:

Well, now those of us who have not yet taken the test have a) learned something very important and b) got one fewer mistake to make on the test. I'll let you know which 12 I miss instead.

Sigh.....

It may or may not be an intentional <b>act</b>, <b>not</b> an intentional <b>foul</b>. The FED shoulda used a word like "deliberate" instead of "intentional". Mighta stopped you from getting all excited.:D

I got it right. It ain't the first time that the FED has pulled this one, cunning linguists that they are.

Stoopid question all the way around. There's absolutely no point to it imo.

I agree.

That's an excellent word, JR. I am going to suggest that as an editorial change for next season. [Change the word "intentional" to "deliberate" in 4-19-4.] That should take care of this kind of confusion.

BTW, can anyone provide an example of a flagrant foul that is not deliberate, done on purpose, or "intentional" ?

I'm all for this.

Personally, I"d rather have the name of the category of fouls changed. It's so annoying to have to keep explaining over and over and over again that just because a foul isn't intentional doesn't mean it's not intentional, and vice versa.

A1 thinks he's been fouled, but no whistle and play continues, he does one of those swinging-his-arm-in-frustration moves and accidentally clocks B2 in the face whom he didn't notice standing right next to him.

Years ago, boys JV. A1 has a breakaway with B1 in hot pursuit. Somehow, just as A1 went up for the shot, he changed his angle to the basket, and apparently fooled B1, who was just leaving the floor in an attempt to block the shot. All this resulted in B1 making a windmill swing which was more or less parallel to the floor. Not sure, but I don't think he got any part of the ball. What he got was A1's head. It looked a lot like a linebacker knocking down a running back waiting to catch a screen pass. I was trail, partner made the call. I rushed in to get between B1 and anybody looking for revenge. (there was none) B1 was quickly and convincingly remorseful. "I'm sorry Mr. Ref. I didn't mean to.....etc." I said "OK, son, I believe you, but I think you're gonna have to sit the rest of this one out." He didn't. Partner called it intentional, but to me this foul really fit well under the heading, "of a violent or savage nature."

rulebook language
 

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.

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?

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

<i>"A flagrant foul may be a personal foul...of a <b>violent or savage nature</b>".</i>

<i>"If personal, it involves, but is not limited to <b>violent contact</b> such as striking, kicking and kneeing"</i>

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.