An unusual situation

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Ralph Stubenthal

Mark, check rule 4-19-4. It explains that a flagrant foul "may or may not be intentional."

To borrow from one of the posts on the last thread, replace "intentional" in that phrase with "deliberate."

We naturally tossed the player. We didn't use any verbage but it was obviously intentional and flagrant.

Yes, it qualifies as either, but you can only assess one - otherwise, the player would attempt 4(6) free throws.

As far as the above thread goes, as I understand the rule, whenever you have an intentional foul on a shooter, if the shot was not good, then the 2 or in this case 3 shots would be taken and then they get the ball back. In other words, you don't shoot the normal 2 shots for the intentional. If the basket had been good, then the shooter would get 2 shots and the ball back for an intentional foul. So, in the above situation, if you called the foul on the shooter an intentional instead of a technical, he would get his 3 shots rather than just get the 2 for the tech.

Actually, by #5 of the summary of penalties, the player gets 3 shots for any foul against him during a missed 3pt try/tap.