Flagrant T or not?

[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.