Yes. You cannot have an "intentional flagrant" foul.

All fouls are either personal or technical. They might have a modifier -- intentional, flagrant, common, unsporting... They might also be "grouped" -- double, simultaneous, multiple.

You can't pick more than one modifier and one group to describe a foul.

Ahem, excuse me for this but I would like to say that FIBA uses two fists in the air, one with each hand for an ejection. Kinda like a big cheer.

[QUOTE=mbyron]The difference is this: if you signal an intentional foul, and then eject the player, you are applying a penalty that does not apply to an intentional foul. Now you must explain the discrepancy.

I understand your point, I honestly do, BUT...if I ever encountered a coach who knew the difference in penalty administration between the two, I personally would have no problem saying to a coach "I decided that the foul rose above the definition of an intentional foul due to the severe/violent nature"......even easier if you confer with your partners "coach my partner saw a shove in the back that I didn't see" - JUST EXAMPLES...in 10+ yrs of high school varsity basketall though I have yet to encounter that coach who knew the difference:) At the point that you DQ their player, they are more worried about a)arguing with you about what the kid did to get tossed and/or b)what the hell they are going to do in terms of subbing, etc, whether or not you used the correct mechanic for your prelim signal is probably pretty low on their list of *****es at that point..That being said though I understand what you are saying that it is not "technically" correct, although as I think I've said before neither is the finger to the locker room technically correct....problem is it is not the type of mechanic that you use enough to effectively change something that you have done...I think I can only remember two flagrant fouls in 10 yrs where this would be an issue outside of middle school ball....I'll note it though, thanks to everyone...even you JR.....

Aw come on that was my attempt at reconciliation! I appreciate anyone who can help me be a better official, but there have to be standards of decency and respect even among officials don't there? Even on a message board?!?!:p

Certainly can't knock FIBA for that. It conveys <b>exactly</b> what the call is, and that's the whole purpose of signaling.

Not a bad idea at all imo.

I'm not sure we can use that: it sounds metrique.

Interesting discussion.

The reason I bring it up is a situation I ran into at a rec league game last week. Post players were getting really physical as the game was progressing (locking arms, using elbows, etc)* and at one point, two opponents got particularly physical. Before I could put air in my whistle, the larger of the two opponents hooked his elbow around the neck of his opponent and "threw" him to the ground quite forcefully.

I'm pretty new, so it took me a little bit to review in my head exactly what had happened and what I should do. In the few seconds that my brain was processing, my partner had gotten between the two players to make sure a fight didn't ensue and then proceeded to come over to me to find out what I had.

I told him that, to me, the contact seemed severe enough to warrant a flagrant foul. But when I went over to the table, I reported it as a flagrant technical foul. D'oh! My partner didn't catch it and it went through as a T...I didn't realize my mistake until later as I was reviewing the rule.

Looking back, I think perhaps I double-blew the call. Yes, the contact was excessive, but I don't think it warranted a flagrant, I think an personal intentional foul would have been sufficient. Either way, I blew the call and realized as I reported to the table that I had no idea what mechanic other than a "T" to indicate that I had a flagrant technical. Thus the thread.




*Upon further self-examination (and a thorough argument as the T'd up player left the confines) I realize now that, essentially, the escalation that led up to the incident was my fault. I allowed the post play to get more and more physical as the game went on. Gonna work on that this week.)

1. T'd player should not have been leaving confines.
2. Flagrant personal sounds like the right call here. too much for a simple intentional.

I owe you one. :)

In reading about some misunderstanding about intentional fouls, flagrant fouls, etc....

Wouldn't it be nice if someone provided a link to a flowchart showing all the type of fouls? :eek:

Sounds pretty damn flagrant to me!

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by rainmaker
You have to do that kind of thinking in your head ahead of time. Decide right now that excessive live ball contact is ALWAYS Intentional, NEVER flagrant. Just make that decision. "Violent" is reserved for "beginning of a fight". If it's live ball action that has anything at all to do with the game, it's Intentional, not Flagrant.

See? During a live ball, Flagrant fouls are only for the racial slur/profanity type foul, or something that's really a fight.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...ages/agree.gif

Fiba
 

Here is FIBA, #48.
http://www.sportinlo.co.za/ajaxfilem...ed/SIGNAL6.JPG

So it would seem to me that signal 48 would be the signal for a flagrant foul. So there are different signals for intentional and flagrant.