If you have to argue your point, your case is not very strong.

Flagrant Foul definition:
...may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing. If technical, it involved deadball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar, or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

You can't get there in this case.

Additionally, nothing in 10.4 - 5 supports your case for flagrant.

Let me ask you this. A1, comes up to you and says, "You're a fuc#ing moron." You going flagrant with this?

Assistant coach says the same thing. You going with a standard T?
HC says the same thing. What's your call?

I've got a flagrant on all of them. Frankly, accusing me of cheating is just as unacceptable.

The f-bomb meets the criteria of vulgar, hence a flagrant is warranted.

And accusing me of cheating meets the criteria of unacceptable. You may not agree, but IMO the rules backing is there.

And FWIW, in the other thread, Nevada was right by rule that he could call that T on the fan. No one argued that; the question was whether it was the right call to make under the circumstances.

"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
 

Berkut: I agree with BktBallRef. If you are an official, posting on this Forum, please speak only in "Officialese". That' the only way we will know, for sure, that you're a real official, not an impostor. If we all don't speak "Officialese", then the only way to tell us apart from coaches, fanboys, players, etc. will be for the Official Forum to issue us some type of identification badge, or something? Official Forum badges? Cool. When asked, we could just whip it out (no comments from Mark Padgett please.).

YouTube - Classic Movie Line #34

YouTube - We don't need no stinking badges!

So are you saying the only way a flagrant can be called is if there is profanity?

If that is the case, you're wrong. In the OP's example, the AC attacked his integrity. That is a no-no- most likely a flagrant no-no.

Actually, I did. A T on a supporter requires interfering with the proper conduct of the game. I argued that the fan didn't interfere with anything (other than perhaps medical personnel).

Never Prosper ...
 

C'mon guys. A coach, on the court, within hearing distance of players, and fans, accuses an official of cheating, and some of you argue that a flagrant foul is not warranted, by rule? You've got to be kidding me? Now I can certainly understand an argument regarding whether, or not, a flagrant foul is warranted in this situation, we all have different length fuses, but to argue that it's not warranted, by rule, is ridiculous. Do any of you really believe that the NFHS would not consider a coach publicly accusing an official of cheating, during the game, of being a flagrant act?

And it could be argued that a parent coming down to help tend to little Jonny intereferes with the "orderly" progress of the game (also from the note) by setting a poor precedent. I'm not saying it's a wise course, but the rule backing is there.

Perhaps. Also seems a bit of a stretch. Of course, the note also requires discretion...

:rolleyes: Where's the beating a dead horse picture?


By the way, for this OP, I think prior actions/attitudes in the game determine if it's flagrant or not. If I feel somebody is implying I'm cheating and doing it fairly publicly, I'd prefer to not have them watching any more of the game.

Actually, you can get there in this case.

"...a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct."

"If technical, it involved deadball contact or noncontact at any time which is...abusive conduct."

What constitutes abusive conduct cannot be decided by one person for everyone. What I find abusive, you may find acceptable. But that doesn't mean either of us is wrong.

1) Um, arent you arguing your point now?:D

2) Um, I just got there by taking out the extraneous and irrelevant words.:D

3) Um, rule 10-4-5 is completely irrelevant in this particular case. You can use rules 10-4-1(a) or 10-4-1(c) to justify calling a technical foul on the assistant coach. And rule 4-19-4 is now used to determine whether that technical foul might also be flagrant in nature. That's how it works with all the unsporting acts listed under 10-4-1. Straight judgment calls.

Note that the decision as to whether a technical foul should be called in the first place right through to whether a flagrant "T" should maybe be called is strictly a straight judgment call by the official on the spot. We all have different tolerance levels. Re: Nevada....you can question another official's tolerance level and judgment(which I certainly did about Nevada in another thread) but I don't think that you can question his right to make that call, by rule. And in this case also, imo you can maybe question his judgment in making the flagrant "T" call but you can't question his right to make that call under NFHS rules.

I might not agree with Nevada's call but I'll defend to his death his right to make that call.

I Can't Wait To Read His Next Post, If I'm Lucky, He'll Pick On Me ...
 

Man, I'm glad you're back from the dead.

"Reaches" - as in a colloquiolism meaning "randomly sticking your arm out into the dribbler in the vain hope that you can poke the ball out rather than actually playing any actual defense - usually from behind or the side as the guy is blowing past you..."

The stupid crap mechanic is usually a shrug of the shoulders, right?

Fair enough.