2 FTs and the ball?
 

I think I kicked this one yesteray....thinking about it now....

Flagrant fouls are 2FTs and the ball...Is that also the case for intentional?

Been so long I couldn't remember yesterday when my partner called a flagrant on B1 on a breakaway layup...defender made a play on the ball but it was a pretty hard foul that resulted in both players going down to the floor...

cleared the lane, gave A1, 2 FTs then gave the ball to team B for endline inbounds....Coach A didn't complain but I thought afterwards that we should have given the ball back to team A on the endline closest to the spot of the foul? I don't know what I was thinking...

Refresh me...this is one I don't see very often...

What exactly happened, Coltdooggs?
Did you eject? What you described sounds like an intentional foul.
Yeah, 2FT and the ball, but the throw-in spot may vary on the call.

A1 is on a breakaway and B1 chases her down, A1 jumps for the layup and B1 jumps at the same time on A1's left side, swiping down at the ball...shooter gets the shot off but there is excessive body contact that causes them to both crash to the floor...it was a hard foul, I will admit that....

Partner was lead and I saw him cross his arms after whistling...He was first year official and I was asleep at the wheel not talking with him....I'm thinking he called flagrant rather than intentional because B1 did make an attempt at the ball IMO rather than just grab her.....to compound my situation...I did not ask him (that was my mistake, not clarifying what he had). I should not have assumed what I would have whistled is what he had...

I administered the FT with lane cleared then the ball was given to team B for endline inbounds as if it was just normal FTs....no ejections.

So I'm trying to clarify my own doubts on how I handled it and I don't have my rule/casebook with me at work...I think the part I kicked was not giving the ball back to Team A for inbounds under the basket, closest to the spot of the foul?

Under Fed rules, whether it was flagrant or intentional, its 2 shots and the ball at the spot of the foul. Flagrant means the player is ejected.

You said "excessive contact." If that's the case, even if they are "playing the ball" you can still call an intentional foul -- which it sounds like is what was called.

Thanks Tex....much appreciated...

Crossbones = 2FT + ball
Flagrant = bye bye

If your parnter called it flagrant, something was wrong:
1. He ejected a player when he shouldn't have.
or
2. He simply got his terms wrong. Too much NBA.

As Texas Aggie noted, an "intentional foul" does not have to mean the player didn't go for the ball. Excessive contact is one of the defining factors for intentional fouls.

As for the penalties; it is very rare that A will shoot freethrows with the lane clear with B getting the ball afterwards. If you're doing it this way, it ought to trigger something in your brain that questions it.

Right. In Fed "Flagrant " means fighting or really nasty cursing or some such -- something with no empathy. There's no specific penalty for a flagrant foul, you just adminster whatever the penalty is for the foul you called, such as intentional, or technical, or even a flagrant personal foul. There's also no signal for flagrant. the crossed arms above the head means the Intentional foul, and should never be used to indicate flagrant.

for an intentional foul, 2 shots by the person who got fouled and the ball to that team ath the spot nearest to where the foul occurred. For a technical, 2 shots by anyone and the ball at mid court.

Dos that help?

Say what?:confused:

There's two kinds of flagrant fouls----> flagrant personal fouls and flagrant technical fouls. The appropriate penalty for both is specified in the rule book. Rule 10PENALTIES(Rule 10 Summary) #4 specifies the penalty for all flagrant fouls; it's 2 FT's and the ball for a throw-in. Rule 7-5-4(b) specifies where the throw-in is for a flagrant personal foul, and rule 7-5-6(a) specifies where the throw-in is for a flagrant technical foul.

Wow. I haven't been that wrong for at least a week. Sheez, I don't know how I got it so screwed up. I take back every thing I said and bow to your vastly superior knowledge.

Once again, this brings up the issue of going to the NBA rule on flagrant 1 and flagrant 2 instead of using the term "intentional" for a flagrant foul that just wasn't quite flagrant enough to warrant an ejection. It just seems to make so much more sense to me to have that be the rule.

I guess that's the reason the NF doesn't do it. :rolleyes:

It's the word "intentional" that really confuses everyone. I HATE that usage. The rest isn't so bad. Just change the vocabulary.

When you have a Flagrant Personal, is it all verbal when you report the foul, tell the coach the player has been disqualified, then tell the player, 20 seconds to replace?

Is it coach, timer; player. Or coach; player; timer?

I'm not finding these references.

Coach, timer, player. Which is going to be real interesting this year, because you're going to get the warning horn almost as soon as you turn around to tell the player he's disqualified.