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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

Every foul is "something beyond normal". Definition of flagrant is as follows: fla|grant «FLAY gruhnt», adjective.
glaringly offensive; notorious; outrageous; scandalous: a flagrant crime. You’re an old flagrant heathen (John Millington Synge).
glaring: a flagrant error. I still content that not all "intentional" fouls are flagrant - nor shoud they be described that way. As has been stated before, not all flagrant fouls are intentional either.

You might be better off learning the rule book definitions and what they mean, and forget completely about what the dictionary states. All you're doing is confusing yourself.

Intentional fouls are never flagrant fouls, by NFHS and NCAA rules definition. Ever. Similarly, flagrant fouls are never intentional fouls either. The "act" itself may be either intentional or not in nature in both types of fouls, but that is not a criteria that is needed for either.

[chartrusepengui]

I'm not the one confused here. I agree that intentional fouls are never flagrant fouls and that is why we cannot change the terminology. However - intentional fouls can appear to be flagrant. This argument is the same as those earlier that argue about the "intent" of a foul. Some flagrant fouls can appear to be "intentional", yet by rule cannot be. How is changing terminology going to solve anything? If you say that by changing terminology more officials are going to "make the call" then they are the ones confused. Are you one of those officials? I'm not - I have no problem making the calls and seeing the difference between them. My whole point is that changing the terminology will not change how officials make the call.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

I'm not the one confused here. I agree that intentional fouls are never flagrant fouls and that is why we cannot change the terminology.

Not sure that this is a compelling argument. The terminology can be changed if the committee or someone on the committee chooses to. Secondly the terminology does not have to use the words "flagrant" in the terminology. Just because you happen to disagree does not mean you cannot change the terminology. If the wording is ever changed, I doubt what you think or what I think is ultimately going to make much of a difference.

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

However - intentional fouls can appear to be flagrant. This argument is the same as those earlier that argue about the "intent" of a foul. Some flagrant fouls can appear to be "intentional", yet by rule cannot be. How is changing terminology going to solve anything? If you say that by changing terminology more officials are going to "make the call" then they are the ones confused. Are you one of those officials? I'm not - I have no problem making the calls and seeing the difference between them. My whole point is that changing the terminology will not change how officials make the call.

Also understand that everyone advocating the change are not all saying the change is good for the same reasons. I know I do not think changing the terminology is going to make me or anyone call more of these fouls. What it might do is take away the point of view that there has to be intent for a call to be made. Remember, coaches and players complain a lot when they are stuck with these fouls they did not "intentionally" mean to foul or to cause a certain level of contact. If you simply change the terminology, they might just understand their intent was not a factor in the call. At least the NCAA puts in an intentional foul with excessive contact as apart of those rules. There is also a signal to boot for clarification as to why an official made this call. I just have always thought the terminology was bad because many people do not know "intent" is not at all apart of the foul calling process. You can foul intentionally and it is considered apart of the game and the strategy of the game at least from the NF's point of view.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

1) However - intentional fouls can appear to be flagrant.

2) Some flagrant fouls can appear to be "intentional", yet by rule cannot be.

1) In what way?

2) Again, can you explain that statement?

I have no idea what you're talking about now.