Personal Flagrant Mechanic
 

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...

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..

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...

You really have never had a situation where contact was excessive but not performed "on purpose"? :confused:

How about slanderous or racial comments toward another player? Its not an intentional personal but certainly should be flagrant. IMO

flagrant technical foul

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...

Exactly, non-contact = technical foul, not what was presented in this case.

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?

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....

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?

Mean Ol' JR...:D

JR, do you believe there should be a signal or is the game better off without one and simply state when reporting?

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...

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....

Yeah, mean ol' me.:D

Personally, I think that an approved signal would be helpful, if only if it helps to stop the confusion between "flagrant" and "intentional" fouls. It might let everybody know when somebody is parking lot bound. Of course, the baseball heave-ho used by most officials now seems to send the same message.

Of course, I have also heard the position taken that an over-demonstrative buh-bye display can inflame a situation. There's some merit to that point too imo. My own view is that if you have to unload someone, do it quickly, decisively...and unemotionally. And report it to the bench the same way.

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.

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. You don't have to decide if it's flagrant. Then to decide between just a regular old common foul, or an Intnetional Foul, you just set your own boundary of "excessive" contact. If you call two every game, your boundary is too low. If you only call one in 100 games, it's probably too high (unless you're only doing 6th grade girls). Set those "limbo bars" ahead of time, and then when you see it, call it decisively and quickly. No deciding during the game. You've already figured it out.

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.

Absoultely I agree with 100% of what you are saying. I am not claiming that an intentional foul IS a flagrant foul..by no means! All I am saying is that every flagrant foul I have ever encountered has been ALSO intentional, so my preliminary signal is always an intentional foul, THEN I sort out whether or not it is flagrant - how do you have "violent contact" without it being "excessive" (one definition of an intentional foul)? Punch someone in the face but only do it once? Maybe this is not the intention of the Fed to use the mechanic in this way (open to debate IMO), but this method a) Achieves the exact same result as NOT giving the intentional foul signal preliminarily and b) Communicates that the foul is "in excess of" a garden variety personal foul right from your preliminary signal....again if you are talking about a fight then you probably aren't going to have the chance to give ANY preliminary signal b/c you are going to be in a scrum or running away from one, so the mechanic itself sort of goes out the window at that point...but a flagrant foul does not apply only in a fight situation...would a two handed shove in the back on a player going in for a layup be considered flagrant to you? It probably would to me depending on the severity, but again this is why I believe you need to see these things develop in the context of each game before deciding on which way to go...

Here you go:
Perhaps the bolded sentence in 4.19.4 is confusing: it cannot mean that a flagrant foul might or might not be an intentional foul. The definitions of the foul types are quite distinct, so it's not the case that one could be a subset of the other (the way that common fouls are a subset of personal fouls, for example).

You also cannot have an intentional foul become a flagrant foul, although you might have one followed immediately by the other.

So, JR is correct to say that no flagrant foul is an intentional foul. It might, of course, be intentionally flagrant, but that's neither here nor there. And semantics will be important as long as words have meanings.

Questions?

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!

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.

Rainmaker, that's completely wrong.

Excessive live ball contact can be <b>either</b> intentional or flagrant. It's a judgment call that is based on the severity of the act.

The fact that the ball is live or not determines whether the foul is personal or technical, except for the exception in 4-19-1NOTE. Whether the ball is live or not is not a factor as to whether a foul is intentional or flagrant.

Flagrant fouls do <b>not</b> have to have anything to do with a fight either. It can be an attempt to injure.

I appreciate your logic. I have used a form of the intentional as my flagrant... meaning I called Intentional Foul (arms crossed above head) and then briskly pulled them down to my waist (still crossed) to indicate flagrant. After reading your posts distinguishing the two fouls, perhaps I should no longer use that either.

You will run into knowledgeable coaches, especially at the higher levels, that know the difference between intentional and flagrant fouls. They know that their player shouldn't be getting tossed if you signaled "intentional". And you will also be evaluated somewhere down the line, even though you may not be aware of it. So, jmo but it's always a good idea to use established mechanics and signals. They might not care if you're signaling while walking or that you're a little bit outside the reporting area. Those aren't biggies. Tossing a player after signaling a foul that doesn't call for an ejection could cost you a whole lot of grief though.

Since you're probably the only official in the country to use it, I would agree. ;)

I had my own signal for an ejection of a coach, but I stopped using it when enough people told me it was an obscene gesture. :D

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.

Don't revive 8 year old threads.