Flagrant or Intentional?
 

Had a rather "interesting" play during the first quarter of a girl's freshman game yesterday.

I am working by myself for the first part of the game due to a scheduling SNAFU. Home team player is dribbling in her front court near the division line and is being closely guarded by a defender. Home team player picks up her dribble and looks for an open player to pass to. Defender is playing her close but doing so legally.

Finding no where to pass the ball and with my count up to "3", I watch the offensive player get an angry look on her face as she takes the ball from about her waist, brings it up and forcefully smacks the defender in the face with it. I have no doubt at all it was done intentionally.

I whistle the foul, have a quick debate with myself whether or not this was flagrant and decide to call it intentional. No argument from anyone and the fouled defensive player needs to have a sub come in to shoot her free throws.

I realize this is pretty much HTBT, but would anybody consider calling a flagrant foul in this situation? My justification for calling it intentional is that she used the ball to strike her opponent instead of say, her elbow. But she definitely did strike her opponent.

Thoughts?

Just out of curiosity did you go personal or technical?

I'm guessing he went personal, based on this part:

As you describe it, Welpe, it seems 100% HTBT. I wouldn't have lost sleep over either choice.

Is personal the correct choice? I understand there was contact between the ball and the girl's face, but is that the type of "contact" needed for a personal foul? Just wondering if non-contact/technical wouldn't have been the proper choice. Not that it makes a huge difference other than throw in spot, assuming the offender didn't do anything else naughty the remainder of the game.

As far as the play itself, I agree it is a HTBT and I think you are justified either way. I would tend to be a bit conservative and lean towards intentional without knowing anything else, but if this girl had shown a tendency towards excessive contact, etc prior to this occassion I would have no problem with you going flagrant.

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 would like to preface this statement by saying I worked in Mississippi for three years and we were required to do both boys and girls (long night, double-header every time). Why is it that most of the strange situations discussed on this site involve a girls game? I'm not pointing fingers at the officials or the players, but it just seems like things like this happen with girls games more than boys games.

Anyway, I would think this is similar to an elbow that makes contact above the shoulders. If I'm not mistaken, I think some leagues (NBA) call this a flagrant automatically. If you think the girl did this intentionally I would be more apt to send her since she used an object - the only one possible in a basketball game - to strike a player.

One thing I always pregame before a girls game is their "instant on" behaviors. A lot of time, you can sense trouble brewing in a boys game and do something to control it. But many times girls just snap - if you hear the "B" word it is likely on after that. It seems like the OP was very attentive to this situation and I would just finish it off with an ejection. I would think about what could happen if the offending player stays versus ejection. How far would you allow this behavior to go before deciding enough is enough?

This is a very good question and something I have noticed as well. To be honest and I'll probably get ripped for this, but whatever - I think it is an issue of basketball accumen. I think there is just not the general basketball IQ from top to bottom on the girls side that there is on the boys side. Sure there are many on the girls side who have more bball IQ than those on the boys side, but from the star player to the last girl on the bench it is not as consistent. I have seen it get better over the last 20 years as feeder programs, AAU, etc, have become more prevalent on the girls side, but is not on equal footing yet.


?[/QUOTE]Anyway, I would think this is similar to an elbow that makes contact above the shoulders. If I'm not mistaken, I think some leagues (NBA) call this a flagrant automatically. If you think the girl did this intentionally I would be more apt to send her since she used an object - the only one possible in a basketball game - to strike a player.

One thing I always pregame before a girls game is their "instant on" behaviors. A lot of time, you can sense trouble brewing in a boys game and do something to control it. But many times girls just snap - if you hear the "B" word it is likely on after that. It seems like the OP was very attentive to this situation and I would just finish it off with an ejection. I would think about what could happen if the offending player stays versus ejection. How far would you allow this behavior to go before deciding enough is enough?[/QUOTE]

Also agree with this assesssment of the girls game and the "instant on" behaviors- if you can figure out the "why" here let me know it would help me at home as well:)

As for the OP, does the reason for the action make any difference to you as far as flagrant v. intentional? We have case play 10.3.6.B which gives the example of the throw-in striking the opponent in the face, but it only says that officials need to be "aware", it doesn't prescribe the penalty. Do you have a different set of criteria for a player who throws the ball at an opponent's face in that situation vs. one who does it out of frustration as in the OP? I am honestly on the fence with this one, just thinking through the different scenarios where this could happen.

What: scholastic athletic contest
Who: 13-year-old girls
Possibilities:

1. More of the same. Another player can do the same/retaliate and remain in the game provided she doesn't already have 4 fouls. The nice guy on my left shoulder is saying this wouldn't happen while the little stinker on my right shoulder is saying someone could leave with a broken/bloody nose.
2. More of the same and less eligible players to play the game (they have to stay on the bench when ejected).
3. An ejection nips in in the bud.

By my calculations, ejecting the player gives you better odds of this not happening since you will eventually and likely get rid of the bad apple(s) if you eject for this behavior.

I agree it's a HTBT situation, but if as you describe it was clearly an intentional hit to the face with the ball I'd probably lean towards flagrant.

[QUOTE=tomegun An ejection nips it in the bud.
[/QUOTE]


I've played my share of sports. I trust my perceptions when stuff is happening on an athletic field or court.

Player hits another player in the face with or without the ball,like in the OP,I will eject.

I like the nice guy comment. My experience is no good deed goes unpunished.

I aim to be all business out there.

It's not personal-its business.

Thanks for the responses so far.

Yes, I did call this an intentional personal foul. The offensive player didn't throw the ball at the defender, she held it in her hands and clubbed her with it. As Snaqs said, I thought it fit into the category of "illegal contact".

Tomegun, good point about the instant on. This was still very early in the game, so I don't think there was too much to provoke her (maybe some past history I was not aware of). But I noticed the rest of the game, she was playing in a rather reckless manner, and not really playing with much control.

During another play in the second half, she committed a player control foul when she picked up her dribble, got frustrated and shoved the defender guarding her with one hand. I called a PC foul, probably should've called that one intentional too.

Calling the first one flagrant probably would've been the prudent move. Now I'm kind of annoyed with myself for not doing it.

Thanks everyone, please keep the comments coming.

Girls don't need a lot of time to flip the switch.

You just made me frown and crinkle my brow. :D It sounds like you had a legit opportunity to get rid of a bad apple early on and you didn't do it.

My buddy has a saying that goes like this, "Kill em all before we get to camp because we don't have enough provisions to feed them!"

In other words, handle your business before they come back to kick you in the______.

You had a flagrant intentional personal foul.

MTD, Sr.

Sounds like you're probably right. But at least you're helping to make me a better official and arming me with the knowledge to properly take care of business in the future. It seems like such an obvious call now. :o

Thanks.

No problem. This is the kind of discussion that used to be handled at the local bar/restaurant, but everyone is so busy now.

Put another way, no good deed goes unpunished.

What ?
 

I'm having a Homer moment.

Help me.

Exactly who are we to kill before we get to camp ?

Isn't it obvious?
 

The baby dolphins.

Well, he is one of those guys that say things that make you need a translator. If you took some hostages back to camp, as opposed to killing them, you would have to feed them.

:D:D:D I give up, translate it to mean whatever you would like...baby dolphins, puppies, etc.

Shooting baby dolphins in my part of the world is fightin words. :rolleyes:

thank you, Homer moment has passed.

Impossible. There's no such foul and there never has been. You can have a flagrant personal foul or you can have a intentional personal foul.

The sentence "it may or may not be intentional" in rule 4-19-4 has been completely misinterpreted by some people. The word "intentional" refers to the act being deliberate in nature, not the type of foul.

And if you think differently, call or e-mail your IAABO national interpreter before going into one of your famous 10,000 word filibusters.:)

Again, there is NO such animal as a flagrant intentional personal foul.

You're right. It's a vegetable.

OK - I'll get back on the meds. :o

Perhaps I'm mistaken (very possible) or perhaps you've mis-typed (possible, I suppose), but I believe there can be either a flagrant personal foul or a flagrant technical foul. No such thing as a flagrant intentional foul.

You can, of course, have an intentional personal foul or an intentional technical foul.

You disagreed with him and virtually quoted him at the same time. Another way to put it would be, "There's no such thing as a flagrant intentional foul, personal or technical."

IOW (one more time), there's no such thing as a flagrant intentional personal foul or a flagrant intentional technical foul.

Well, I'm glad we agree, but:

Like I said, either I'm wrong, or Jurassic mis-typed (which is what I believe happened). I think he meant to write flagrant technical foul where I quoted in red. Or he's wrong, which I doubt in this instance.

Uh, never mind. Gotcha.

Aw geeze, I was in such a hurry to make my point that I screwed up myself. You're 100% correct. I went back and corrected my post.

Thanks. Appreciated.

Figured that's exactly what you meant, but since we're talking about specific language here I wanted to be sure. I still find myself learning new things that I was previously very certain on to take anything for granted.

I don't know who you are anymore.

Shut up.

Now I feel all warm and fuzzy. Thanks.

With regard to the OP, (remember the OP, back before we got all warm and fuzzy?) if anybody smacks anybody "forcefully in the face" and there is "no doubt at all it was done intentionally," it sounds flagrant to me.

Rulebook Should Be Reworded ...
 

Including me. But Jurassic Referee straightened me out. It took several posts, but he was patient with me, and eventually won me over with knowledge and logic.

Live Ball, Personal (Contact) Or Technical (Noncontact) ???
 

Did we ever get a definitive answer for this?

Fist to opponent's face: Personal (live ball contact)
Swear directly into opponent's face: Technical (live ball noncontact)
Throw ball and hit opponent in face: Technical (live ball non-contact)
Hold ball and hit opponent in face with ball?

Welpe:
I had to make the exact same choice you did in a BJV game last week. I'm at 3 on the count A1 pinned on the end line by B1&B2, A1 makes the decision to get his elbows up above his head and swings them striking B1, the contact puts B1 on the floor and ultimately he has to be replaced.
2 yr. ref and this is my first time seeing this type of play. I went with intentional personal. Like yours a HTBT. I reviewed the play and my call with V game refs (who were in the locker room and did not see the play)....and echoed what many have said here, could have gone flagrant...personal or intentional.

Not definitively covered imo. Could be:
1) PC foul
2) intentional personal foul
3) flagrant personal foul
4) unsporting technical foul
5) intentional technical foul if it neutralizes a defender's position
6) flagrant technical foul

Or incidental contact.....

It all depends on whether you define "contact" as involving physical contact between players only or also contact between player/ball being held by an opponent.

My advice? Go with your heart! :)

I have a theory on tomegun's observation
 

I've coached girls for 9 yrs, and it didn't take long to conclude exactly what tomegun observes. I think I figured out why, and I've never heard this theory before. I've come to believe that the reason girls will "snap" or do something stupid that could (and sometimes does) cause injury is because there's very little chance of getting punched in the face for doing something stupid or aggressive like there is with boys.

Girls come up playing ball under direct supervision of an adult. With rare exception, girls don't play ball at recess, at the park, or in the yard after school; all places where direct supervision by adults is minimal or non existant. Boys grow up playing ball in all these minimally supervised places. When I was 12 yrs old playing pick up ball, if I shoved an airborne shooter into the basket support pole, chances are I was going to get punched. I developed a respect for my opponent, not becasue it was ethically and morally correct, but because there was consequences for doing something stupid. Girls never develop that basic survival respect for their opponent because they never play under the threat or possibility of getting punched in the nose as a consequence for their actions. That's my theory.

Girls will barrel roll through an opponents legs when chasing a ball toward the sideline or endline and an opponents body is btwn ball and barrel roller. Girls will take eachothers legs out on a layup attempt, making no effort to go for the ball. Girls will pinch (purple nurple style) eathother in the torso area when screened. Girls will run their momentum through an opponent, pushing her into the stands or into a close wall on an and line, when they could have taken a slightly different angle, or controlled their momentum slightly to lessen the impact. All the while idiot parents in the stands are yelling, "Nice hustle." Boys learn at a young age a healthy respect for not doing these things. ANd if they do, their will sometimes be punches thrown even in an officiated game.

[QUOTE]One thing I always pregame before a girls game is their "instant on" behaviors. A lot of time, you can sense trouble brewing in a boys game and do something to control it. But many times girls just snap... [QUOTE]

Absolutely true, last night one of my players was punched with an open hand square in the forehead, it was like a right cross punch, but with palm of hand instead of fist. My player (small guard) was defending had just switched onto a post player and was in front of the basket in the lane trying to hold poor (behind) rebound position. As the rebound was secured away from my sm guard, the post player turned around (she had inside position) looked my guard right in the eye and punched her betweenh the eyes. What was the provocation? My guard says she did body up from behind and had leveraged the top of her thigh under the post players back side, moving her forward a little.


2 yrs ago, this same guard (Sr now) had just stole the ball at mid court from the opponents point guard and was taking it to the basket for a layup. The girl she "picked" caught up from behind and ran straight through my guards front leg which was extended in the air as she released the ball. My guard flipped in the air before landing, came down with her hand/arm extended to break her fall and broke a bone in her wrist. The defender never raised her hand to go for the ball, just ran through my players extended front leg. As I was watching it on video afterwards, I noticed that about 3 posessions before the injury, my same player drove the lane where a help defender stood waiting with good position and her hands straight up over her head. My player had a good angle to get past her. At the last second, the defender took a tiny step toward my players path and threw her hip out to the side, making contact with my players hip sending her flying head over heals out of bounds.

I mention these last two examples because they are the kinds of stupid actions boys learn not to do at an early age, or you might get punched. While it's true that girls are less likely to punch someone in the first place, basketall is a whole different social experience when there's always an adult with a whistle present. With extremely rare exception, when girls play basketball, there's always an adult right there.

I don't.

Consult 10.3.6 SITUATION B.

I don't see why these two should be treated differently. The contact is ball to player in both.

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.

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

10-6-2 (variation)
 

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.