Flagrant or Intentional?

[Adam]

It's a good question, the definition states it "involves illegal contact with an opponent...." Note that "contact" isn't necessarily defined as requiring body contact. I think it's the right choice for this play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's a good question, the definition states it "involves illegal contact with an opponent...." Note that "contact" isn't necessarily defined as requiring body contact. I think it's the right choice for this play.

I don't.

Consult 10.3.6 SITUATION B.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Consult 10.3.6 SITUATION B.

I did, which is how I ended up with no-call, PC or one sumthin' of intentional/flagrant.

Now, what's your take as to whether it's a personal or technical foul if a foul is called?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I did, which is how I ended up with no-call, PC or one sumthin' of intentional/flagrant.

Now, what's your take as to whether it's a personal or technical foul if a foul is called?

My take is that it must be technical, if a foul is called.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My take is that it must be technical, if a foul is called.

Do you think that it's definitively covered by rule?

[just another ref]

A player shall not contact an opponent with the ball, unless contact is incidental and only with the opponent's hand as the opponent attempts to make a play on the ball.