Personal Flagrant Mechanic

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You cannot have an intentional foul that is flagrant. EVER! The penalties are also NOT the same. EVER!

At the risk of being called mean ol' JR once again, I gotta say you really should get into the rulebook a little bit more.

Rule 4-19-3 defines an intentional foul. Part of the definition states "Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act." It also says that "causing excessive contact with an opponent" may also be an intentional foul.

Rule 4-19-4 defines a flagrant foul. Part of that definition states that they involves violent contact or fighting.

Note....excessive contact vs. violent contact. That's one of the ways that they differ. The official has to make the judgment as to which applies.

The penalties are different as to whether the player committing the foul gets tossed or not. That's a heckuva big difference in penalties.

What do you do when you have a flagrant foul AFTER the player ejection? What do you do after an intentional foul? Are they the same? I understand that you have an ejection with a flagrant....As I said earlier, unless you have a fight where all hell has broken loose and you don't ever even give the preliminary signal for the foul anyway, if it is a play at the basket for instance, I see a benefit of signaling the intentional foul initially, then figuring out if you have a flagrant...maybe I am "changing my call" at that point if I go to the flagrant, either way I get to the same place...or are you going to tell me next that I can't "change my call" from intentional to flagrant when I get to the table? Have I committed myself to "only" the intentional once I signal it? What if you just signal a personal foul preliminarily thinking that you have a flagrant, then you are asking yourself as you walk to the table "geez was that "violent" contact or just "excessive" contact"...then you decide "well it really wasn't that violent, it was just excessive". So now you get to the table and now you have to report an intentional foul when you never signaled one with your preliminary signal...makes more sense to me to signal the intentional to begin with if you have it, then decide if you are going to eject a player if the contact is deemed "violent"....again, gives you a chance to huddle w/ partners, etc, take your time before you send a player to the showers....

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's wrong to give the intentional foul signal for a flagrant foul.

There, I just said it.

And if you refuse to believe that, just open your rule book to page 32 and read rules 4-19-3 and 4-19-4.

Intentional fouls and flagrant fouls are two completely different types of fouls, and never the twain shall meet.

Would you use the "traveling" signal to show a "3 seconds" violation?

Btw, in rule 4-19-4, you'll find wording that says that flagrant fouls may or may not be intentional in nature, By "intentional", the FED is talking about the adjective describing the "act", not the "name" of the foul.

Regarding 4-19-4, is this your interpretation of what the FED is talking about? Seems to me that there is room for multiple interpretations here....

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The NFHS says in rule 4-19-3 "Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated". It also says that you can call an intentional foul solely for "excess contact". How much more clearer do you need than that?

Do you need a lesson in logic? Just because A is not necessarily B does not mean that B cannot possibly be A.

You quoted earlier where it said that a flagrant foul may or may not be intentional, that is the point that I am seizing on. You claim that the Fed's interpretation is that "intentional" in this case is to be used as an adjective not the type of foul...all I am saying is that is vague...saying that a flagrant may or may not be intentional is not the same as saying that a flagrant CANNOT BE intentional...

[rainmaker]

kbilla -- let's see if I can summarize for you, using a slightly different vocabulary. I'll capitalize the names of the types of fouls so you can differentiate when I'm describing and when I'm naming.

First of all , there's the Intentional Foul. There are two sub-categories of Intentional Fouls. There's the Intentional Foul to stop the clock. This foul is a foul committed on purpose in order to stop the clock. In order to be called Intentional, it must be not a basketball play, not a play on the ball, and so on. It doesn't need to be excessive contact. Examples are two hands on the back or on one shoulder, or grabbing the jersey from the back or side.

Then there's the "excessive contact" Intentional Foul. This foul doesn't have to be on-purpose, just a reckless play on the ball, for example a body slam or a hard two-handed whack that aims for the ball, but hits the head by mistake. Remember, it doesn't have to be done on purpose. It doesn't have to be intended to be violent or excessive. The excess is usually accidental or careless.

Regarding contact, Flagrant fouls are violent or savage contact that constitutes fighting. It's not about basketball anymore, it's just me getting a piece of you, so to speak. Even an Intentional foul that's reckless but intended to stop the clock isn't flagrant. Even if the contact is really, really rough, unless it constitutes fighting, it's just an Intentional, and never Flagrant or Technical.

All those definitions are with regard to contact during a live ball.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by kbilla

I believe the signal (NFHS) would just be the intentional foul signal and then verbally you would indicate that the player is ejected from the game...you would also obviously inform the coach and the player...ncaa (men) has an additional signal for an intentional foul with excessive contact, but the protocol would be the same otherwise I believe...

Consider this . . .

B1 flagrantly shoves A1 during a shot, and you're planning to eject him. You give the intentional foul signal, wait for things to calm down, then you report the foul to the bench. You now tell the coach that, even though you only signalled an intentional foul, B1 is DQed for the rest of the game. Have fun with that one.

When I eject, I either give the "door point" at the spot or wait to report it verbally at the table.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Consider this . . .

B1 flagrantly shoves A1 during a shot, and you're planning to eject him. You give the intentional foul signal, wait for things to calm down, then you report the foul to the bench. You now tell the coach that, even though you only signalled an intentional foul, B1 is DQed for the rest of the game. Have fun with that one.

When I eject, I either give the "door point" at the spot or wait to report it verbally at the table.

How is that going to be any more difficult than just signalling a regular personal foul initially and then going over to explain to the coach that his player is DQ'd? Either way not an easy situation, but you do what you have to do...I don't believe that pointing to the door or anywhere else for that matter is a FED/NCAA mechanic either is it? Of course not, but I use that one too!

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kbilla

How is that going to be any more difficult than just signalling a regular personal foul initially and then going over to explain to the coach that his player is DQ'd?

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.

If you signal a personal foul, and then eject the player, you can still rule that the foul was flagrant. Since there is no distinct mechanic for signaling a flagrant foul, and every flagrant foul is either personal or technical, then a reasonable approach would be to signal personal foul and then to further specify 'flagrant' when you arrive at the table.

The point is that you shouldn't deal with the lack of a flagrant foul mechanic by signaling something that the foul isn't, namely an intentional foul (nor should you signal any kind of violation, double foul, or anything else this foul isn't). But it IS a personal (or technical) foul, so it's not misleading to signal that.

I personally like adding the "toss" mechanic, but I'm a baseball guy; the official's manual doesn't specify that.

[kbilla]

[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.....