The Official Forum
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Personal Flagrant Mechanic (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/39065-personal-flagrant-mechanic.html)

Idaho Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:32am
Personal Flagrant Mechanic
 
What's your preferred mechanic when reporting to the table? Is it just verbal since there's no prescribed signal?

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
What's your preferred mechanic when reporting to the table? Is it just verbal since there's no prescribed signal?
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...

Scrapper1 Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:14am
Quote:
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 are describing what is sometimes called the "cross and toss". But this is not really the NFHS mechanic. The simple fact is that there IS NO SIGNAL for a flagrant foul in NFHS. It's not the intentional signal, because intentional fouls are not flagrant fouls.

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
You are describing what is sometimes called the "cross and toss". But this is not really the NFHS mechanic. The simple fact is that there IS NO SIGNAL for a flagrant foul in NFHS. It's not the intentional signal, because intentional fouls are not flagrant fouls.
by definition that is correct, an intentional foul doesn't NEED to be flagrant, but wouldn't all flagrant fouls by definition be intentional? i don't have my book in front of me with the exact wording, but it would stand to reason to me. you are correct though that there is no signal for a flagrant foul per se, i was just making the assumption that if you have a flagrant foul, then it must have been intentional...so you aren't really signaling a flagrant foul, you are signaling that the foul was intentional, and on top of that you have the modifier that it is flagrant, for which there is no signal..

Adam Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:24am
Quote:
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...
Nope. there is no flagrant signal. Call the personal and report it as a flagrant when you get to the table.

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Nope. there is no flagrant signal. Call the personal and report it as a flagrant when you get to the table.
Again, while technically correct, I believe the better mechanic is to call the intentional first. I cannot think of a scenario where you would have a flagrant foul that NOT an intentional personal foul (or a technical foul which is not the case as presented here), can anyone??? If we can agree on this, then it can't be said that it is "wrong" to give the intentional signal....This also buys you time to replay the play in your head, perhaps huddle with your partners if necessary to discuss, before making the decision that it is a flagrant foul and the player is leaving...

Mark Padgett Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbilla
I cannot think of a scenario where you would have a flagrant foul that NOT an intentional personal foul
You really have never had a situation where contact was excessive but not performed "on purpose"? :confused:

SmokeEater Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbilla
I cannot think of a scenario where you would have a flagrant foul that NOT an intentional personal foul (or a technical foul which is not the case as presented here), can anyone???
How about slanderous or racial comments toward another player? Its not an intentional personal but certainly should be flagrant. IMO

TimTaylor Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeEater
How about slanderous or racial comments toward another player? Its not an intentional personal but certainly should be flagrant. IMO
flagrant technical foul

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
You really have never had a situation where contact was excessive but not performed "on purpose"? :confused:
Excessive contact that was not intentional to the point where I would eject a player? No never. Nor have I ever seen this. I have had hard fouls with a player going for the ball, but the small handful of flagrants (non-technical) that I have had in 13+ years have been shoves in the back, going for the head on a layup attempt, those types of things....I have never seen a player make a legitimate attempt at the ball (non-intentional) and foul a player so hard that I would consider it flagrant...

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTaylor
flagrant technical foul
Exactly, non-contact = technical foul, not what was presented in this case.

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
It's wrong to give the intentional foul signal for a flagrant foul.

There, I just said it.:D

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?:D

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.
Without having my book in front of me are you going to tell me that I cannot have an intentional foul that is flagrant? Or are you saying that what may have started as an intentional foul can BECOME flagrant and therefore is no longer intentional by definition? This is semantics to me....the penalty is exactly the same is it not?

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
It's wrong to give the intentional foul signal for a flagrant foul.

There, I just said it.:D

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?:D

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....

Mark Padgett Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbilla
the penalty is exactly the same is it not?
No, it is not. Flagrant includes an ejection.

kbilla Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
No, it is not. Flagrant includes an ejection.
I thought that part was obvious, I should have been more specific - I was referring to after the ejection...meaning two shots, ball out of bounds at nearest spot?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27pm.
Page 1 of 4 1 23 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1