Layup

[dkitch]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

That wasn't how I read it at all. I read it as A2 took an unnecessary step in order to step on B1. If A2 is looking down at B1 and then steps on him, I have a flagerant intentional foul - intent to injure. If A2 is looking at the basket in an effort to shoot and looses his balance due to B1 I have a common foul on B1.

Yeah, in the original post Dan said that the A2 looked down at B1 then stepped on him, which is why I have the flagrant intentional on A2. If A2 hadn't looked before he stepped, I'd have the foul on B1. The key here is intent.

[rockyroad]

Dan, the AR you are referring to was added just a couple of years ago, and was specifically explained (at least to us) to cover plays where the defender falls and that causes the offensive player to fall...I don't think this situation is the same thing. As you said in your post, he looked down, saw the defender and then stepped on him - I'm thinking Intentional here...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dkitch

I have the flagrant intentional on A2.

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I have a flagerant intentional foul

No such animal.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No such animal.

I have to disagree.

NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul . . . may or may not be intentional."

The foul is personal (illegal contact), intentional (premeditated) and flagrant (violent).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I have to disagree.

NFHS 4-19-4 "A flagrant foul . . . may or may not be intentional."

The foul is personal (illegal contact), intentional (premeditated) and flagrant (violent).

The act may be intentional. It was simply a bad usage of terminolgy by whoever wrote this one. They should have have used a word like "deliberate" instead of "intentional".

As Bob said, there is no such animal as an intentional flagrant foul- either peronal or technical. The foul may be "intentional" or "flagrant, but it can't be both.

We've gone over this exact same point many times to-date already on this forum.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The act may be intentional. It was simply a bad usage of terminolgy by whoever wrote this one. They should have have used a word like "deliberate" instead of "intentional".

As Bob said, there is no such animal as an intentional flagrant foul- either peronal or technical. The foul may be "intentional" or "flagrant, but it can't be both.

We've gone over this exact same point many times to-date already on this forum.

I ran a quick search and sure enough it has been repeated many times but I cannot find any with a rules citation. Can you give me your rules basis for this position?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I ran a quick search and sure enough it has been repeated many times but I cannot find any with a rules citation. Can you give me your rules basis for this position?

Rule 4-19 defines all of the different types of fouls. Rule 4-19-3 defines an intentional foul. Rule 4-19-4 defines a flagrant foul. There are separate articles set out for each of them. You will not find an "intentional flagrant" foul defined anywhere in R4-19. It simply does not exist.

If you still don't believe us, a good idea might then be to take that question to your local rules interpreter.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by dkitch

Yeah, in the original post Dan said that the A2 looked down at B1 then stepped on him, which is why I have the flagrant intentional on A2. If A2 hadn't looked before he stepped, I'd have the foul on B1. The key here is intent.

Right but how can you judge intent if he immediatley shot the ball after stepping? What if you interpret it that he looked down and saw that in order to take the most direct path to the basket, he had a player in his way but pulling out could result in a turnover. His intent was to score a basket, B1 impeded that progress.

From the first post: "A2 is standing under the basket so he takes a step to his right but can't because B1 is lying there on his side with his arms covering his head."

What do you expect A2 to do, it seems he took the only option he could to get a shot off. Should he have waited for B1 to get up or roll out of the way?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Right but how can you judge intent if he immediatley shot the ball after stepping? What if you interpret it that he looked down and saw that in order to take the most direct path to the basket, he had a player in his way but pulling out could result in a turnover. His intent was to score a basket, B1 impeded that progress.

From the first post: "A2 is standing under the basket so he takes a step to his right but can't because B1 is lying there on his side with his arms covering his head."

What do you expect A2 to do, it seems he took the only option he could to get a shot off. Should he have waited for B1 to get up or roll out of the way?

So, assuming that my opponent is standing, if I determine that the most direct path to the basket is right through my opponent, it's okay if I just plow him over? My intent is to score a basket, after all, and he's impeding my progress. The defender is supposed to be in my way. Just because he happens to be lying on the floor doesn't make it okay for me to create contact with him to get to the basket. A2's options in this case are the same as they are if the opponent were standing. He can pull up and shoot the jumper, he can try to go around him, he can pass off to a teammate.

Whether B1 has LGP or not, and regardless of the AR, A2 deliberately created the contact. In that respect, it is very much like a shooter jumping into the defender, trying to draw the foul. B1 is therefore absolved of any responsibility and I'm either going to have either a foul on A2, or nothing. Given the non-basketball nature of this play, and the potential for retaliatory ugliness, I don't see how I could possibly pass on it. I'd probably call it intentional just to keep the peace.

[TimTaylor]

Juulie,

Nice catch! I knew I'd seen it, but haven't had time to go looking........

The case book doesn't consider every possible interpretation of each rule every year, but highlights those that are either commonly misunderstood or may need clarification, such as with a new or modified rule. If this were even possible, the thing would be 3 feet thick! The way I understand it, interpretations in previous case books still apply unless/until they are superceeded by a subsequent rule/case book change, so the 04/05 case play you cited does still apply.

In the situation in question I think most would agree that you'd really have to be there, but as described, under NFHS rules it is at the very least an intentional foul on A2, and most probably flagrant IMHO.