Hello all, I am a new official, I would like to make sure I understand the difference between an intentional foul, and a flagrant foul, I know an intentional foul is one in which the player makes no attempt to play the ball, I assume a flagrant foul is the same except for more violent contact. Is this right or wrong? Also please clear me up on the penalties for each of the above type of fouls. I assume a flagrant foul would result in ejection for the player.
I had a situation in my last game where a player was going in for a break a way layup, and the defensive player caught up to him just as he was going up to shoot, and fouled the shooter pretty hard from behind, should I have called an intentional foul, I think the main intent was to commit the foul, not really try and block the shot.

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponent's obvious advantageous position, contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball. It may or may not be premeditated and is not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

4-19-4: 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. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

Both result in 2 shots for the offended team and the ball by throw-in. Intentional fouls are shot by the fouled player, flagrant may or may not be shot by the offended player (because it may be a flagrant technical)

A flagrant foul does result in disqualification (4-14-1), an intentional foul does not (unless it happens to be his/her 5th)

Since an intentional foul is "not based on the severity of the act" you will have to use your judgement. I get the impression that the defender in your situation that there was very little attempt to play the ball. You did say the foul was pretty hard and from behind, that sounds like an intentional. I would have to see it before I call a flagrant. Would you say it was of a violent or savage nature? Doesn't sound like you thought it was.

Hope I got that right, I'm fairly new.

Vets, be kind :)


[Edited by LarryS on Dec 21st, 2001 at 02:45 PM]

In general, you would rule a personal foul as flagrant if there was an intent to injure, or there was blatant disregard for the safety of the other player.

You did very well. I just want to clarify the comment above.

An intentional foul or a flagrant foul while the ball is live is a personal foul. The player who was fouled must shoot the FTs, unless he/she is injured. The throw-in is at the closest spot, just like any other personal foul that results in a throw-in.

An intentional foul or a flagrant foul while the ball is dead is a technical foul. Any player(s) may shoot one or both FTs. The throw-in is at the division line.

Further:

The initial poster stated that "I know an intentional foul is one in which the player makes no attempt to play the ball,..." That's not always true. Even when playing the ball, an intentional personal foul can be called if there's excessive contact. I wouldn't call it flagrant unless I felt there was intent to hurt or injure a playeror, as Mark stated, there is total disregard for the safety of the opponent.

Fighting is not a foul but is a flagrant act that is always a technical foul and disqualification.

A dead ball contact foul is an intentional technical foul. If it is of a violent or savage nature, it is a flagrant technical foul.

I would like to add that a verbal foul, that might be a technical, could also be flagrant. I know several folks on this board consider the F-bomb to be flgrant. I ejected a player once (5th grade, even) for calling a kid a "Cracker". I don't think the insulted kid understood, but it seemed to me to represent an attitude of trying to start a fight. I would have done the same if someone called someone a Niggervvtfcf f f vg fvg v v v fg g cb cgcv vvg.g gffgvt btyytby678c (Thank you, Frank-Mason...)

Ive been basically told that in general, F-Bombs draw the T...actually ANY profanity heard should warrant a whack but I doubt I would T up a kid how utters damn or **** under his breath after a missed layup.

On to the flagrant vs. intentional...has a sitch Sunday night where the defensive player pushed with both hands the offensive rebounder in the back in order to get position. Unfortunately, the offensive kid was off balance and the result was him kissing the floor in maybe what would be considered a violent manner. I called the push and since they were not in bonus, admin'd the throw in. I did hear a LOT of "Thats a Tech" or "Thats Intentional" from the stands. These kids werent banging...it was to me more of a bad move not intended to hurt anyone on the D. But I heard about it. His coach removed him as that was his 4th.

Should I have called intentional because he used his hands rather than his body to establish position?

Larks

I probably wouldn't have called it intentional. Players push all the time. That doesn't make it intentional. As far as excessive contact, the contact really needs to be excessive and obvious, or such a call can get you into the soup.