Flagrant T or not?

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by Berkut

I don't think that is the case at all - what constitutes a flagrant technical is clearly a matter of judgement, is it not? So how could the rules not "warrant/support" such a call? I can certainly understand the argument that a flagrant is not necessary, but I don't think it is really that cut and dried.

A flagrant foul (technical) is one defined by rule as "displaying unacceptable behavior". I think accusing an official of cheating certainly can be argued to fall under that definition.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

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.

[icallfouls]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

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.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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).

[Adam]

Originally Posted by sseltser

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).

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.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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...

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.

[constable]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

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

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

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

2) Flagrant Foul definition:
...a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. If technical, it involved deadball noncontact at any time which is abusive conduct.
You can't get there in this case.

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

1) Um, arent you arguing your point now?

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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