Intentional Flagrant Personal Foul

[iref4him]

Another official came to me about this play situation. He was calling a two man game. A1 has used up his dribble and is getting pressure from B1. A1, realizing that he is getting close to a 5 second violation, decides to throw the ball off of B1 so he won't get the 5 second call. But A1 throws the ball not off of B1's leg or foot, but throws it directly into B1's face. A1 starts his dribble. The official called a player control foul and gave the ball to team B. Both coaches didn't like the call. One said it was legal and the other wanted a technical foul.

My first thought is no player control, but intentional foul possibly flagrant. The mere fact he throw the ball against B1 was a definite intentional. The fact it caused harm to B1 makes it flagrant also in my mind. Technical foul no since the ball is not dead. So I told this official that it should have been an intentional flagrant personal foul and disqualification on A1. Two shots and the ball awarded to Team B at the closest spot to the foul.

Any thoughts?

[TriggerMN]

By rule, you cannot have either a player control OR an intentional foul here, because contact did not occur. You could have a technical or a flagrant technical in this situation, if you decide the act was malicious enough. You have to use a lot of judgement in this situation however, because whatever you do or do not call, it's going to be a hard sell to at least one of the coaches.

Remember, technicals can be live ball. If A1 is bringing the ball up the court and swears at you for not calling a foul on B1, it's a technical.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by iref4him

Another official came to me about this play situation. He was calling a two man game. A1 has used up his dribble and is getting pressure from B1. A1, realizing that he is getting close to a 5 second violation, decides to throw the ball off of B1 so he won't get the 5 second call. But A1 throws the ball not off of B1's leg or foot, but throws it directly into B1's face. A1 starts his dribble. The official called a player control foul and gave the ball to team B. Both coaches didn't like the call. One said it was legal and the other wanted a technical foul.

My first thought is no player control, but intentional foul possibly flagrant. The mere fact he throw the ball against B1 was a definite intentional. The fact it caused harm to B1 makes it flagrant also in my mind. Technical foul no since the ball is not dead. So I told this official that it should have been an intentional flagrant personal foul and disqualification on A1. Two shots and the ball awarded to Team B at the closest spot to the foul.


Any thoughts?

This is quite possibly an intentional flagrant foul, not seeing the play makes it tough to judge. It is not a basketball related play,he could have thrown it off any part of the defender.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

This is quite possibly an intentional flagrant foul,

It's impossible to be an "intentional flagrant foul." It might be intentional; it might be flagrant; it can't be both.

[BktBallRef]

There's no such thing as an intentional flagrant personal foul or an intentional flagrant foul.

If it's anything, it's an unsporting technical foul. It's no matter that the ball is live. If a player curses an opponent while dribbling the ball, are you going to call a technical foul? I would hope so.

Here's a similiar case play, found under the Player Technical Foul rule.

10.3.7 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a designated spot throw-in. B1 is putting great pressure on and the count is at four seconds when A1 throws the ball and it strikes B1's face. The ball rebounds from B1's face directly out of bounds.

RULING: The administering official will have to make a decision based upon a number of observations. Was the throw-in to B1's face purely accidental or was it a voluntary, planned act? Was the ball contact caused by the movement of the defender? Was the act of a an unsporting nature? The administering official must be aware that players often react negatively in situations where they are frustrated or are retaliating for something which happened earlier in the game.

[Raymond]

I had a similar situation in an Over-30 intramural championship. Had a player who had a reputation for being a little off kilter. A couple of times after getting rebounds he faked throwing the ball at the defender's face in order to alleviate defensive pressure. Well, in the 2nd half of the game he actually took the ball and bopped the defender on top of the head. I T'd him up for an Unsporting Act.

[iref4him]

[QUOTE=BktBallRef]There's no such thing as an intentional flagrant personal foul or an intentional flagrant foul.
QUOTE]

Rule 4: Definitions
Section 19: Foul - Article 4

A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by iref4him

Rule 4: Definitions
Section 19: Foul - Article 4

A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional.

You either have a flagrant technical foul or a flagrant personal foul. Yes, either can be intentional in nature, but "intentional" is not part of the formal name of either offense.

[HawkeyeCubP]

[QUOTE=iref4him]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There's no such thing as an intentional flagrant personal foul or an intentional flagrant foul.
QUOTE]

Rule 4: Definitions
Section 19: Foul - Article 4

A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional.

IRef - The book is saying that the act, itself, may or may not be intentional, not that the flagrant foul may or may not be an Intentional Foul. - Slightly confusing wording.

Make sense?

[iref4him]

[QUOTE=HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by iref4him

IRef - The book is saying that the act, itself, may or may not be intentional, not that the flagrant foul may or may not be an Intentional Foul. - Slightly confusing wording.

Make sense?

Thanks for the clarification!!!

[Ignats75]

The mere fact he threw the ball off of another player does not mean there was a foul committed. The only thing it could be would be an unsporting act and based on the judgement of the official as to the seriousness would determine whether it was a technical or flagarant foul. But even that would be a judgement call. Did the Player A jump and try to throw the ball off Player B but lose control of the ball? In other words, was it intentionally thrown at Player's B face? But there is no contact between the players, so there could not be a personal foul.

[Adam]

Technical foul (possibly flagrant technical, but probably not) or nothing.