We don't need no stinkin' new rules - or do we?

[chartrusepengui]

I'll start with this one. Let's eliminate the term "intentional foul" and replace it with a "flagrant level one". The penalty would remain the same. We all know there are many times we call an intentional for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. I don't think there's anything wrong with making this call, but the terminology is confusing. We should go to the NBA rule of having level one and level two flagrants, with level two including ejection. It really wouldn't be a "rule" change, just a "terminology" change.

I think this is nuts. There are situations where "intentional fouls" are not flagrant and should not be labeled as such.

I don't necessarily think that NBA rules, and the way officials interpret and call them is something I want high school athletics and/or officials at this level to aspire to.

IMO, I honestly believe the "terminology" change would create more problems than it would help, although I agree that many incorrectly call the intentional foul. PC's can and should be called for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. We should all strive to make the correct call instead of making terminology changes to cover poor judgement, rules knowledge, and mechanics.

[chartrusepengui]

oops - I meant PF's not PC's

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

I think this is nuts. There are situations where "intentional fouls" are not flagrant and should not be labeled as such.

I don't necessarily think that NBA rules, and the way officials interpret and call them is something I want high school athletics and/or officials at this level to aspire to.

IMO, I honestly believe the "terminology" change would create more problems than it would help, although I agree that many incorrectly call the intentional foul. PC's can and should be called for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. We should all strive to make the correct call instead of making terminology changes to cover poor judgement, rules knowledge, and mechanics.

What I was trying to address were the situations in which we call an "intentional" when it really is a flagrant when it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of including ejection.

[chartrusepengui]

Ok, - I understand - but isn't that just a personal foul? I have been to our required state meetings where it has been emphasized that personal fouls can sometimes be violent in nature as far as contact is concerned, but NOT flagrant or intentional. My point is that instead of changing terminology - just to call it appropriately. I don't think that changing terminology is going to change the way excess contact is called. JMO :-)

[Jimgolf]

How about a rule where the coach is not permitted to speak to the officials?

A long time ago coaches were not permitted to even coach their players during games, only sit on the bench quietly. I saw a copy of a news item where coaches were first permitted to coach during timeouts (might have been in Springfield at the Hall of Fame, don't remember). Ahh, the good old days.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

Ok, - I understand - but isn't that just a personal foul? I have been to our required state meetings where it has been emphasized that personal fouls can sometimes be violent in nature as far as contact is concerned, but NOT flagrant or intentional. My point is that instead of changing terminology - just to call it appropriately. I don't think that changing terminology is going to change the way excess contact is called. JMO :-)

sometimes, but a foul can also be intentional based solely on the severity.

[chartrusepengui]

How about we keep the terminology we already have, but ADD the flagrant level one. That way, a foul could still be "intentional" with the penalty even if the contact is not flagrant in any way.

[Adam]

So you'd have two different fouls, with two different names, with exactly the same penalty?

[FrankHtown]

Coach: How can that be an intentional foul? I know both of the shooter's arms are broken, but my player was going for the ball.

[chartrusepengui]

exactly my point - what's really the point of changing? What is accomplished? I contend - absolutely nothing is accomplished exept that not all "intentional" fouls are flagrant and should not be labeled that way ..... but flagrant fouls can be intentional.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So you'd have two different fouls, with two different names, with exactly the same penalty?

You mean like a hold and a push, or a hand check and illegal contact? Different names same penalties.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

What I was trying to address were the situations in which we call an "intentional" when it really is a flagrant when it doesn't necessarily rise to the level of including ejection.

Maybe we could get an official signal for a "hard foul." Penalized the same as an intentional is now, but saving us the grief of having to explain to the coach/player why they're being called for an intentional foul when there was no intent or premeditation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

IMO, I honestly believe the "terminology" change would create more problems than it would help, although I agree that many incorrectly call the intentional foul. PC's can and should be called for excessive contact when there may not have been intent. We should all strive to make the correct call instead of making terminology changes to cover poor judgement, rules knowledge, and mechanics.

I think the terminology change might actually allow for more calls. By rule, the intentional foul can be called based on the severity of the contact regardless of intent. However, a lot of officials are slow to call this because they get hung up on the word "intentional."