Intentional or Technical

[klancie]

Situation from HS game:

Player A1 dribbles ball, closely guarded by B1 near sideline. A1 picks up dribble, looks to pass, but becomes frustrated by B1's tight defense. A1 holds ball in left hand and hits B1 in face with right elbow. There is no doubt the contact is flagrant.

Officials assess a technical foul on A1, put ball in play at halfcourt after free throws. My thought is that this should have been an intentional foul, because the ball was live.

Thoughts? Rule or case references please.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by klancie

Situation from HS game:

Player A1 dribbles ball, closely guarded by B1 near sideline. A1 picks up dribble, looks to pass, but becomes frustrated by B1's tight defense. A1 holds ball in left hand and hits B1 in face with right elbow. There is no doubt the contact is flagrant.

Officials assess a technical foul on A1, put ball in play at halfcourt after free throws. My thought is that this should have been an intentional foul, because the ball was live.

Thoughts? Rule or case references please.

I am a little confused. You said the foul should be flagrant, but then say it should be an intentional foul? I do not think it can be both. You have to choose one or the other. It could be a technical if the technical was not for the action in question. It sounds like you are not really sure what the Technical was given for. Just my thoughts on your play.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by klancie

Situation from HS game:

Player A1 dribbles ball, closely guarded by B1 near sideline. A1 picks up dribble, looks to pass, but becomes frustrated by B1's tight defense. A1 holds ball in left hand and hits B1 in face with right elbow. There is no doubt the contact is flagrant.

Officials assess a technical foul on A1, put ball in play at halfcourt after free throws. My thought is that this should have been an intentional foul, because the ball was live.

Thoughts? Rule or case references please.

Neither of you are right.

The correct call is a FLAGRANT PERSONAL FOUL.

[refnrev]

A punch would have left no doubt. It would have been a flagrant. But elbows can be tricky. If they agreed on a T, it probably was. Did they deem it an intentional T or not? Or do you know?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Neither of you are right.

The correct call is a FLAGRANT PERSONAL FOUL.

How do you know? Did you see the action? It could have also been a plane PC Foul, a Flagrant Foul and Intentional Foul or a regular foul if something caused the ball to be dead. It sounds like the person was assuming what happen rather than knowing for sure.

Peace

[klancie]

I discussed this with the officials after the game. In their opinion, it was definitely not a normal PC foul, as A1 took her right hand off the ball to throw the elbow, and then made flagrant contact with B1.

They reasoned that since the foul was flagrant, it should have been technical.

I reasoned that since the ball was live, it should not have been a technical foul.

[derwil]

No Technical, "just" a flagrant. Toss the player (10-6 under penalties), two shots with the ball inbounded at spot nearest the foul. Foul counts towards the bonus.

Nothing in the mechanics book for flagrant. Do you just signal as a normal foul and tell the scorer that it's flagrent?

[refnrev]

I assume that since it was flagrant they tossed the girl. If not, they blew this play in every sense. Just out of curiosity, what level was this game?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How do you know? Did you see the action?

These are the facts. They are undisputed.

Originally Posted by klancie

Situation from HS game:

Player A1 dribbles ball, closely guarded by B1 near sideline. A1 picks up dribble, looks to pass, but becomes frustrated by B1's tight defense. A1 holds ball in left hand and hits B1 in face with right elbow. There is no doubt the contact is flagrant.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Neither of you are right. The correct call is a FLAGRANT PERSONAL FOUL.

Been there. Done that. I think it was Nevadaref who finally straightened me out. Wait a minute. Maybe it was my twin brother Billy Mac (note the space) on the NFHS forum. Where are my keys?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How do you know? Did you see the action? It could have also been a plane PC Foul, a Flagrant Foul and Intentional Foul or a regular foul if something caused the ball to be dead. It sounds like the person was assuming what happen rather than knowing for sure.

Why are you are such ...?
I simply took the time to read what the OP wrote.

Originally Posted by klancie

There is no doubt the contact is flagrant.

BTW, I seriously doubt that the player was flying through the air like a plane. It is truly sad to see an adult display the writing skills of an elementary school kid. I can't imagine how difficult life must be for you.

[JRutledge]

...

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why are you are such ...?
I simply took the time to read what the OP wrote.

I am an ... because it was not very clear why the foul had to be a flagrant foul? Flagrant foul has a special distinction that may or may not apply on this play at all. Just because someone says it was a flagrant foul (then says it should be an intentional foul in the next line) does not make it so. It is up to the judgment of the calling officials to call either. And you obviously did not read the next line in the thread. It sounds to me like the person was confused as to what the foul should have been and a player with the ball can commit a simple Player-Control Foul. This is not an "automatic" situation. It sounds to me like you are jealous of something because everytime I say something you feel the need to name call.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BTW, I seriously doubt that the player was flying through the air like a plane. It is truly sad to see an adult display the writing skills of an elementary school kid. I can't imagine how difficult life must be for you.

I would rather know that I made a writing mistake on a discussion board, then act like a baby like you do every time someone does not agree with you. I might write like I am in elementary school, but you act like you are in elementary school. What is with all the posts about the NF as if they have to answer to what you think? That gets old really quick.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by klancie

I discussed this with the officials after the game. In their opinion, it was definitely not a normal PC foul, as A1 took her right hand off the ball to throw the elbow, and then made flagrant contact with B1.

They reasoned that since the foul was flagrant, it should have been technical.

I reasoned that since the ball was live, it should not have been a technical foul.

That brings a little more light to the situation because you actually talked to the officials and did not just observe something from the peanut gallery.

And no, flagrant fouls and technical fouls are not one in the same. You could have a technical foul during a live ball, but that would be for conduct of the participants, not a foul because of contact. That is a common mistake officials make in this part of the rule. Flagrant Fouls are not common so people think an ejection always involves a Technical Foul.

Peace

[gpugh616]

How funny you post this...unless the original poster was talking directly about me, I had this exact situation this week. The only difference is A1 used the ball and hit the defender in the face. I went with a flagrant personal foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gpugh616

How funny you post this...unless the original poster was talking directly about me, I had this exact situation this week. The only difference is A1 used the ball and hit the defender in the face. I went with a flagrant personal foul.

The only problem is I do not know if you could have a flagrant personal foul with only contact of the ball. You might have a Flagrant Technical because that is about conduct, not contact with a player.

Peace