Purposely stepping on opponent's foot

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

Correct. Contact during a live ball is personal. 3rd time you might consider flagrant.

Daryl suggested an unsporting T for what's essentially a contact foul. I disagree. I also am in no way going to call this flagrant; I don't care if he does it 5 times.

I do agree with Daryl's escalation, but....
1. violation.
2. personal foul.
3. intentional foul.
4. intentional foul.
5. intentional foul.
6. intentional foul (player's done now).

Do you really think this even gets to the 4th step?

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Daryl suggested an unsporting T for what's essentially a contact foul. I disagree. I also am in no way going to call this flagrant; I don't care if he does it 5 times.

I do agree with Daryl's escalation, but....
1. violation.
2. personal foul.
3. intentional foul.
4. intentional foul.
5. intentional foul.
6. intentional foul (player's done now).

Do you really think this even gets to the 4th step?

No way, though a different player could try it (in second or third instances). Then, I'd say go right to the 2. personal, 3. intentional scenario described above. Or skip the personal if you've made it known clearly enough what's happened.

Of course, depending on the, uh, energy put into said foot-stepping-on, it could go unsporting immediately, not unlike an elbow. IMHO (Or now are we getting into flagrant personal/tech territory?)

Also, with a quick look I couldn't find the right violation-foul citation in the book. That is, wouldn't the violation bring a dead ball, thereby casting subsequent foul in a different, harsher light? I know I'm just not looking in the right place (re: fouls after a violation). Or since this is the continuation of the same play, does that matter?

Sorry, but I could bet when I see this team again, it's going to come up again in one form or another.

[deecee]

snaq -- how would this NEVER be a flagrant

How would this be different from a punch or kick? You can tell when someone intentionally wants to step on someones foot. If you have see it happen you know the difference between accident and intended.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

snaq -- how would this NEVER be a flagrant

How would this be different from a punch or kick? You can tell when someone intentionally wants to step on someones foot. If you have see it happen you know the difference between accident and intended.

Your logic isn't flowing. "How is it different from a punch or kick?" Are you serious?

If you can show me the rule or case play that makes this flagrant, I'm open.

Just because it's intentional does not mean it's flagrant. That's why we have an "intentional foul" option. Good grief.

[deecee]

So in your opinion a player can just walk up to an opponent and slam his foot on the opponents foot maliciously and you are not going to call this flagrant?

What if the oppoent breaks a toe?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

So in your opinion a player can just walk up to an opponent and slam his foot on the opponents foot maliciously and you are not going to call this flagrant?

What if the oppoent breaks a toe?

If you think that's what I'm saying, or that's what my opinion is, I can't help you.

If you're trying to make some rhetorical point, you might want to just make it.

What you wrote above is so far away from the OP that it's not even relevant to this discussion.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If you think that's what I'm saying, or that's what my opinion is, I can't help you.

If you're trying to make some rhetorical point, you might want to just make it.

What you wrote above is so far away from the OP that it's not even relevant to this discussion.

You might want to take note of my answer to him (post #15), and his answer back (post #17).

Geeze, getting your brother-in-law out of town really has you shook up, eh?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Amesman

No way, though a different player could try it (in second or third instances). Then, I'd say go right to the 2. personal, 3. intentional scenario described above. Or skip the personal if you've made it known clearly enough what's happened.

Of course, depending on the, uh, energy put into said foot-stepping-on, it could go unsporting immediately, not unlike an elbow. IMHO (Or now are we getting into flagrant personal/tech territory?)

Also, with a quick look I couldn't find the right violation-foul citation in the book. That is, wouldn't the violation bring a dead ball, thereby casting subsequent foul in a different, harsher light? I know I'm just not looking in the right place (re: fouls after a violation). Or since this is the continuation of the same play, does that matter?

Sorry, but I could bet when I see this team again, it's going to come up again in one form or another.

Defensive violations do not cause the ball to become dead when they are free throw lane violations. Therefore, you could call the violation and the personal foul (my preference here).

If he does this after the free throw motion has started, let the shot go up and call the delayed violation.

If the offense does it, kill it immediately with a violation. Next time, you could still do both if you don't see it until he's on the foot.

My point was you cannot call this a T; it's got to be personal (either common, intentional, or flagrant.)

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Defensive violations do not cause the ball to become dead when they are free throw lane violations. Therefore, you could call the violation and the personal foul (my preference here).

If he does this after the free throw motion has started, let the shot go up and call the delayed violation.

If the offense does it, kill it immediately with a violation. Next time, you could still do both if you don't see it until he's on the foot.

My point was you cannot call this a T; it's got to be personal (either common, intentional, or flagrant.)

Really, really helpful. (Really.) Thanks

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Daryl suggested an unsporting T for what's essentially a contact foul. I disagree. I also am in no way going to call this flagrant; I don't care if he does it 5 times.

I do agree with Daryl's escalation, but....
1. violation.
2. personal foul.
3. intentional foul.
4. intentional foul.
5. intentional foul.
6. intentional foul (player's done now).

Do you really think this even gets to the 4th step?

1st. Cudos to Snaq for correcting my mistake. An escalation of the penalties for the infraction was my real point. ( I started to correct it myself but got sidetracked).

2nd. I am very surprised it took 14 hours to correct the false statement I made by saying assess an unsporting T. A live ball contact foul can NEVER be an Unsporting Technical foul. Basic definitions.

3rd. I agree with the escalation of penalties as listed by Snaq. And yes, if B1 is in the lane space too early during the FT the lane violaion is also penalized every time.

The question is could this ever become Flagrant or not? If the act is to continually just step on the foot then NO. Could the act be so severe (violent stomp) to be determined a kick and meet definition of flagrant? Yes, I could go along with it. But you better be 100% the intent was to injure.

But Snaq's Q and the end of this post is significant. If it gets to step 4 then something is bad wrong. We get on coaches for alot of things but I am proud to say that none of the coaches I know would condone this type of behavior and would have removed the player. Bench time is a great teacher.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

2nd. I am very surprised it took 14 hours to correct the false statement I made by saying assess an unsporting T. A live ball contact foul can NEVER be an Unsporting Technical foul. Basic definitions.

Hey, I had to run my brother in law to the airport last night, didn't get on until this morning. Sorry.