Intentional Foul

[Mark Dexter]

It is different. Most foul contact is unintentional (with the exception, somehow, of this moving screen.) Fighting, however, is intentional, is reactionary, and intends to hurt someone.

[moose69]

Ok guys, and girls. I'm familiar with the rules, and the differences between intentional, flagrat etc. But, how do you signal a flagrant personal foul. I know we've talked about this a while back, and I know lots of people are strongly against signaling with the old baseball "heave-ho" but how do you signal a flagrant personal foul?

TR

[williebfree]

As I indicated on my initial response, You would have to be there to make a true assessment of what happened. But I do appreciate the delineation of no live ball "T" vs. Flagarant.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
If you want to get into the semantics, fighting is not necessarily a contact foul. Even drawing a fist back as if to punch someone is grounds for ejection.

In the case of a T for fighting, it is a flagrant technical, for which the penalty is the same as a flagrant personal foul, with the exception that the team now gets the ball at halfcourt instead of the spot of the foul.

Threatening to punch someone is not fighting. It is unsportsmanlike conduct, however, and therefore is a technical foul. It may or may not be flagrant, although I probably would rule it to be so.

My point, however, was that if you cannot have a live ball contact foul be a technical foul, how does that reconcile with rule 10-3-10 that says that if a player is charged with fighting, it is a technical foul? Fighting is (OK, just to cover all the bases let's say "can be" instead of "is", but the question doesn't change) contact during a live ball.

[BktBallRef]

Okay, so perhaps we can't legally make a blanket statement that no live ball foul results in a technical foul. But IMO, is not a foul, per se. It is a separate and distinguishable flagrant act. I don't think it's wrong to think of it within that interpretation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

My point, however, was that if you cannot have a live ball contact foul be a technical foul, how does that reconcile with rule 10-3-10 that says that if a player is charged with fighting, it is a technical foul? Fighting is (OK, just to cover all the bases let's say "can be" instead of "is", but the question doesn't change) contact during a live ball.

"Fighting" also includes dead ball periods and DOES NOT require contact -- see 4-18.

So, fighting, with contact, during a dead ball is covered under 10-3-9.

Fighting without contact, during a dead or live ball, is covered under 10-3-10.

Fighting, with contact, during a live ball, is covered under 10-6.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

"Fighting" also includes dead ball periods and DOES NOT require contact -- see 4-18.

So, fighting, with contact, during a dead ball is covered under 10-3-9.

Fighting without contact, during a dead or live ball, is covered under 10-3-10.

Fighting, with contact, during a live ball, is covered under 10-6.

Which would mean that the statement that I made earlier would be true. A live ball contact foul will not result in a technical foul.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Nov 5th, 2001 at 11:16 AM]

[Camron Rust]

The "Fighting" begins with the swing (which much alway preceed the contact). Just like excessively swinging the elbows, the contact itself is not the issue, it is the swing and intent. A player can miss on either fighting or swinging of the elbows and both are still a T. If there is contact, both are still a T because of the swing...the contact is just icing on the cake.

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

My point, however, was that if you cannot have a live ball contact foul be a technical foul, how does that reconcile with rule 10-3-10 that says that if a player is charged with fighting, it is a technical foul?

I made this exact same point a while back, Mark, although I can't remember which board I posted it to. I was assured by Mark DeNucci that the definition of personal foul (which is based on contact) "takes precedence" over 10-3-10. I still don't know why it takes precedence, but for all practical purposes, it's almost exactly the same; so I didn't press the point.

Chuck

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

I made this exact same point a while back,

After re-reading my post, I'm left wondering if it's possible to make the exact different point.

Maybe "exact same point" is redundant; maybe I'm just repeating myself; saying the same thing over and over. . .

Chuck