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

OK - now that the new NFHS rules have been posted for the 2007-2008 season, let's list the rules they SHOULD have changed.

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.

Others???

Limit a coach to calling a time-out only during a dead ball.

You mean you want to give coaches the authority to CALL timeouts???????:eek:

Check that! May request a time-out.

iirc, it was on the list but was voted down (and I'm ignoring the "calling" v. "requesting" issue)

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.

oops - I meant PF's not PC's

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.

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 :-)

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.

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."

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

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.

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

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.

What about changing a T to POI like NCAA? I can see the pros and cons of both sides, but it seems like the FED is taking the rules of NCAA slowly but surely.

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.

I would also like to get rid of the terminology of what we call an "intentional foul." I think another word could be used but I would not necessarily want to use the NBA terminology. I think the terminology causes a lot of problems because coaches use the "he was going for the ball" line. We do not call intentional fouls based on if it was intentional or not.

Peace

Maybe we could call them "Intensive fouls?"

"Excessive foul"? Instead of saying it's an intentional foul for excessive contact, just call it what it is. A foul for excessive contact. 2 shots and the ball. Excessive foul. Sounds weird, I know.

How about excessive contact foul. ;)

Actually, I like that very much. It really describes what happened.

BTW - how about a "Flagrant Unintentional" foul? The hand signal would be to form the letters "FU". :eek:

or go like fiba and call them unsportsmanlike fouls ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...se_Ratched.jpg
Paging Nurse Ratched.

One of the patients has escaped again.

Please bring backup with extra medication.

(Mark, I wouldn't mess with her if I were you...)

Not to burst your bubble but unsportsmanlike fouls in NF and NCAA rules (usually American rules across the board) are considered non-contact fouls. It would be "inconsistent with the rules" (I figured someone would like this) to call something a foul based on contact when all other "unsportsmanlike fouls" do not involve any contact. Using that terminology would be inconsistent with what the NF does in multiple sports (and all the committee chairs do discuss similar rules and terminology on some level) to call a foul with contact unsportsmanlike.

Peace

HEY - don't try to come between me and my lovergirl, Mildred. I always appreciate the opportunity to "mess" with her. The meds just heighten the experience. :o

Oh yeah, don't tell my wife.

Arghh! TMI! TMI!

Not <B>those</B> meds!

I need some meds to forget this entire thread. ;)

Peace

Meet you at Hooters, and I'll give you some.

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.

The guys around here refer to that place as The Dollar Store. :D

Hard Foul
 

From Mark Dexter: "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."

We've been instructed by our local interpreter to verbalize "hard foul", loudly, to the table when reporting a hard foul intentional foul.

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

The problem with calling this a "hard foul" is the fact that all intentional fouls are not hard in nature. There are fouls that a defender just grabs someone and not a very violent outcome is a result. I would disagree in using that terminology. Then coaches would say, “That was not a hard foul at all.”

Peace

Those are personal fouls. I'm not saying I'm completely averse to the idea, but I'm not sure "flagrant 1" is the best term to use. It carries too many connotations; I think a lot of officials will be slow to call it based on terminology alone; just like the current "intentional foul."
Personally, I like "hard foul," "excessive foul," or even "intensive foul." Lumping them in with "intentional foul" while maintaining separate terms may not be a bad idea; it would have to grow on me.

Hard Foul
 

From JRutledge: "The problem with calling this a "hard foul" is the fact that all intentional fouls are not hard in nature. There are fouls that a defender just grabs someone and not a very violent outcome is a result. I would disagree in using that terminology. Then coaches would say, “That was not a hard foul at all.”

We have been told to only verbalize "Hard foul" to the table when the intentional foul is a result of excessive contact. When excessive contact occurs, we make the intentional foul signal as a preliminary signal at the spot of the foul, move to the table, report the foul using the intentional foul signal, and verbalize "Hard foul". For other types of intentional fouls, we do not say "Hard foul", but rather we verbalize "Intentional foul".

Who is the "we" you are referring to?

Peace

Jeff, the point is that there are now two different types of fouls that have one name, one signal and one penalty, and it can be difficult for coaches to comprehend that concept. It would be nice to have two different names for the types of fouls with two different signals, even if the penalty was the same. Use intentional foul with the X for the not-hard fouls that are just to stop the clock, or just to take away an advantage -- grabbing the jersey, the bear hug, the shove in the back. THen have a different signal that would mean an "Excessive Foul" or a "Hard Foul" which would apply to the fouls that weren't necessarily intentional, but were just excessive contact. The penalties could be the same for both, just as the penalties are the same for the different kinds of personal fouls. THis would be a level of foul between yr basic average every day foul, and the technical and flagrant foul. I think it's a really good idea, myself.

That works, although sometimes the sooner you get it out, the better.

Disagree completely. There's absolutely no need to change what we're using now. The biggest problem is that some people, including some officials, just don't understand the present terminology being used. There's only one element needed for an intentional foul and it's been defined the same way in the rules forever to include that single element. A foul is deemed intentional if it neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Period. All you are doing now is talking about the different ways that somebody can do exactly that--illegally take away an opponent's obvious advantage. If you break it down further, as you suggest, then imo all you're gonna do is just confuse everybody further also. Whether it's excessive contact, reaching out and grabbing an arm or just giving a tug on the shirt, all of these situations are doing the exact same thing that is already defined in the rule book as being an intentional foul-- illegally taking an obvious advantage away from another player. That makes them all intentional fouls under the current rule book definition. All adding further language would do is just further confuse people.

You and the others are overthinking this to death imo.

Sorry
 

From JRutledge: "Who is the "we" you are referring to?"

Sorry. The "we" I am referring to is our local IAABO board, and we received these instructions from our local interpreter. I believe that all of the local IAABO boards in our state, Connecticut, have received the same instructions.

All of our Connecticut IAABO boards try to stay on the same page in terms of mechanics and interpretations, especially when they may vary with general NFHS guidelines or international IAABO guidelines. For example, the following were our "Connecticut mechanics" for the 2006-07 season: Arms extended not closely guarded signal. Point to floor for two-point field goal try. No long switches when foul is called in the backcourt and there is no change of possession or direction. Team members are not allowed to congregate at midcourt during introductions. Coaching Box must be marked. If home coach and/or home management refuse to designate coaching box with tape, the home team will not use a coaching box for that game. However, the visiting team will be allowed a coaching box. Notify Board Secretary or Commissioner the next day. Note that these do not fully follow either NFHS or IAABO mechanics guidelines.

Jurassic,

The idea for new names is because players and coaches, contrary to popular belief , don't really read the rule book(:eek:) so they don't know what NFHS says an intentional foul is. They think (and adamantly at that) that an intentional foul must have some sort of 'intent.'

The rule says excessive contact without intent to foul can also be deemed intentional. This past sentence is self-contradicting in many of the posters eyes, so that is the reason for bringing up new terminology to lighten the confusion.

BTW, I like all the ideas, but I think just explaining to the coach each time why its intentional will suffice until I am told to do otherwise.

1) Yup, and that's why they question every single intentional foul usually. And all you have to do is tell them that the foul illegally took an advantage away from their opponent. End of explanation, unless you want to add <b>how</b> the advantage was illegally taken away--i.e. excessive contact, grabbing an arm or shirt, not playing the ball, etc.

2) I disagree completely that it's self-contradictory. An intentional foul is defined as neutralizing an opponent's advantageous position. Excessive contact is simply just one way of doing that.

The terminology that we've got now is fine. The understanding of that terminology obviously isn't.

To my knowledge, this isn't a Bd. 8 mechanic.

Uniformity ???
 

From BillyMac: "We've been instructed by our local interpreter to verbalize "hard foul", loudly, to the table when reporting a hard foul intentional foul" and "we received these instructions from our local interpreter. I believe that all of the local IAABO boards in our state, Connecticut, have received the same instructions".

From Mark Dexter: "To my knowledge, this isn't a Bd. 8 mechanic".

To Mark Dexter: I believe that this mechanic was introduced about twelve to fifteen years ago. It was wrong of me to assume that our local board mechanic was also a statewide mechanic. For the past several years, anytime our local board varies from any official NFHS or IAABO guidelines, our interpreters have preceeded their explanations with something like "At XXXXday's meeting, all the Connecticut interpreters have decided to ...". Maybe we weren't acting in such a uniform manner back then. Sorry.

Isn't that what every contact foul does, intentional or not? :confused:

JR,

We are just discussing what our opinion is on what type of language should be used. I do not recall that any current official on this site is having trouble understanding the current rule. I think we would just like to see a change in the language similar to the NBA classifications (I am not for the specific Flagrant 1 language for HS or NCAA games) to change the language. I just think "intentional" is confusing to most casual observers including coaches and players.

Peace

The problem with that view is that excessive contact may not neutralize ANY advantage, obvious or not. It may simply be a play that has absolutely bo bearing on advantage but is just too rough.

Which is exactly my point......

The current NFHS intentional foul language also states "A foul shall also be ruled intentional <b>if while playing the ball</b> a player causes <b>excessive</b> contact with an opponent".

The current language in R4-19-3 already covers all of the same situations that people want to add new language to cover, including your example above. Instead of saying the exact same thing in a different way, just use what we've already got.

Well - 12 to 15 years ago, I was in elementary school. It's quite possible that it was introduced state-wide back then and has simply fallen out of favor in my neck of the woods.

Excessive contact and intentional contact is not quite the same thing to the average person. No one is suggesting change anything other than the language. We know what the rule states, but that does not make it any less confusing. For people who are around the game. Once again usually this is a problem for coaches and players and causes undo conflict about a simple rule. Change the language and it might take away that confusion in my opinion.

Peace

Is that "Bo Jackson" or "Bo Derek" bearing? I hope it's the latter. She can take advantage of me anytime, intentional or not. In fact, flagrant would be nice. :cool:

I'd hope it would be Bo Derek baring.

And that is actually the point!

We (referees...at least most) know what the rule really says. But the name of the foul is a misnomer. The foul you highlighted above has nothing to do with intent....hence "intentioal foul" is logicially the wrong name for it. All that is being suggested is changing or spliting the name so that its name matches the act.

a "flagrant foul" level one is also not a name befitting an intentional foul where the intent is obvious. JMO but the point you make can be argued both ways. Right? Now splitting the name ie adding flagrant foul level one and keeping the intentional foul might actually be the way to go to get the officials to call these fouls more consistently.

Not really splitting hairs because "intentional" clearly implies that there is intent as part of the foul. Flagrant doesn't. It only implies that the foul is something beyond normal.

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.

The use of flagrant in the context of fouls would be more appropriate than using the word intentional to describe a foul. If excessive contact can be apart of an intentional foul, it can be outrageous and scandalous in nature. Why not just call a foul "excessive contact?"

Peace

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 <b>never</b> flagrant fouls, by NFHS and NCAA rules definition. Ever. Similarly, flagrant fouls are <b>never</b> 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.

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.

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.

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

1) :confused: In what way?

2) Again, can you explain that statement?

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