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.

Look at 4-19-4 it defines flagrant personal and flagrant technical fouls

Good point, I was asking Indianaref due to his reference in his reply. I think he stated coach, player. He did not mention timer.

RIght. But I was looking for JR's references for where the throw-in is, and I'm not finding the citations he gave.

Page 51.

Rule 7-5-4(b)--"Designated out-of bounds spot nearest the foul..(b)After.....a flagrant personal foul, as in 4-19-4...."

Rule 705-6(a)--"Designated out-of-bounds spot throw-in at the division line opposite the scorer's and timer's table..(a) After a technical foul, as in 4-19-5...."

Case book play 2.8.4

Aren't Ts (flagrant or other) division line opposite table & flagrant personals are POI??

'o7-'08 books? Okay, well, there's another unannounced change. THis section has been completely restructured, apparently. All I've got is the old books, and this wording is in 7-5-8 and 7-5-10.

flagrant personals not POI.

POI is only for doubles (FED rules).
Intentional is just like a flagrant personal, but without the disqualification.

Boy is wording ever so important! That's what I meant, designated out-of bounds spot nearest the foul :D

POI is for doubles (as you stated)... my bad.

Just don't blame your keyboard. ;)

Unannounced? Sure, if you don't count the "7-5-2 thru (sic) 7: Articles reworded for better understanding and application" phrase in the rule book, and the similar phrase in the anouncement on the NFHS web-site.

Or, maybe you meant that the 2007-08 rules changes weren't announced in the 2006-07 books. ;)

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
'o7-'08 books? Okay, well, there's another unannounced change. THis section has been completely restructured, apparently. All I've got is the old books, and this wording is in 7-5-8 and 7-5-10.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Wow, she goofed twice in one thread. That's very unlike Juulie. Perhaps she needs some of Padgett's meds.

The ball should be given to the offended team (A) for a designated spot throw-in at the spot OOB nearest the foul.

Except where the ball is put in play If a T is involved. :)

Say what?:confused:

Are you really saying that the throw-in spot for intentional personal fouls and flagrant personal fouls are different?

Thinking & typing at different speed. I edited it...:)

What I ment was if it is intentional it is OOB nearest the foul and if Flagrant T it would be at the division line opposite the table

Yes, but I referenced flagrant personal, not flagrant T.

I've tried selling her some, but it's a no go. :(

Snagwells, you are absolutely correct. I realized that when went back & read it again. Somehow along the line somewhere I thought we were talking an intentional foul and a flagrant T.

Intentional fouls can be either personal or technical in nature. The same is true of flagrant fouls.

You can have intentional personal fouls; you can have flagrant personal fouls. The penalty for both are 2 FT's and the ball at the closest OOB spot to where the foul occurred. The only difference is that the flagrant personal foul carries a buh-bye with it.

You can also have intentional technical fouls; and you can have flagrant technical fouls. These also both carry a penalty of 2 FT's and the ball, but the throw-in for <b>any</b> technical foul of <b>any</b> kind is always at mid-court opposite the table. Again, the only difference between these 2 fouls is that the flagrant technical foul carries a disqualification with it.

That's the correct summation.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]


What is a buh-bye? Or did you mean to say bye-bye and hit the wrong keys :)

FTR, is it safe to add that any intentional or flagrant personal foul must occur during a live ball?

Not necessarily, if an airborne shooter is involved.

Oh?

Rule 4-19-5(c)?

Is this where I'm supposed to say, "shut up?"

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 Ch1town
FTR, is it safe to add that any intentional or flagrant personal foul must occur during a live ball?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

4-19-5 . . . A technical foul is:
...
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter.


So Snaqwells is correct. The airborne shooter may commit an intentional or flagrant personal foul while the ball is dead.

Oh?

Are you sure that exception isn't just referring to a PC foul?:)

Yep, I'm sure. The following case book play says that an airborne shooter may be charged with an intentional or flagrant PERSONAL foul.

4.19.6 SITUATION B: Is it possible for airborne shooter A1 to commit a foul which would not be player control? RULING: Yes. The airborne shooter could be charged with an intentional or flagrant personal foul or with a technical foul. (4-19-2, 3, 4)

Yup, they sure can...... if they happen to commit that foul as an airborne shooter while the ball is live. And if they commit the foul as an airborne shooter when the ball is dead, they could be charged with a technical foul too(as stated above).

It depends on how you read the related rules.

I think the exception is pretty clearly not referring to a PC, as it refers to intentional or flagrant and not a PC foul.

That is the point which proves this one. Player control fouls must be common fouls per the definition provided in 4-19-6. Since these fouls are intentional or flagrant they are not common fouls according to definition 4-19-2.

Therefore, this statement, "An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter" is definitely saying that when an airborne shooter commits an intentional or flagrant foul while the ball is dead it is not a technical foul. That is the exception.

Hey, have we just attempted to prove that JR is wrong? :eek: Is that allowed? Perhaps we should go check that other thread and make sure that we aren't doing something that we shouldn't be. ;)

Nah, you're OK.

I wouldn't recommend telling me <b>what</b> to post though. I know where you live.