This is the part of the OP that confused me.

To apply what others have posted: since this play involved contact during a live ball, it's a personal foul. The choices are intentional or flagrant (not both). If you called an intentional foul, you should have had no ejection. If you meant to call a flagrant foul, you should not have signaled an intentional foul.

In both cases the fouled player (or sub if she's injured) shoots 2. And in neither case is the ball put back in play at the POI; the fouled team gets the ball at the spot nearest the foul.

Yep, I realized that after I posted and logged off. I was just so surprised by Juulie's mistake that I erred myself.

Oh, so you're going to blame me?! :p

Seriously, I realized that the part in the definition of Flagrant about "may or may not be intentional" probably meant motivation. And it came to me later, vaguely, some discussion several years ago about the various allowed and not-allowed combinations of words for fouls, such as common personal, flagrant technical, technical intentional, multiple simultaneous, false common intentional, etc. I just couldn't find anything definitive in the book.

So let me clarify the thinking for myself:

A contact foul during a live ball is always going to be shot (if there are shots) by the person who takes the foul. If it's a foul to neutralize an obvious advantage, or if it's excessive contact, it's an intentional, two shots and the ball at the point nearest the foul, regardless of the time in the game, or point in the action. If it's violent or savage in nature, it's flagrant, same as intentional, but with the fouling player being ejected.

So really, in effect, during a live ball, a flagrant is intentional+ejection, we just don't use the words Flagrant+Intentional, and don't signal with the crossed arms. Right?

There's an exception to this statement.

I prefer to define fouls in terms of the action rather than the penalties. A flagrant foul is defined differently, even though both result in free throws + the ball. Your approach confuses the definitions, and is thus potentially misleading.

Wrong.

An intentional foul is never flagrant in nature. If it was, it wouldn't be an intentional foul, it would be a flagrant foul.

Rule 4-19-4 referencing flagrant fouls says that "it may or may not be intentional". "Intentional" in that sentence means that the action may or may not be deliberate in nature. It has nothing to do with it being an "intentional foul". It was just a poor choice of words to describe the acts.

You can have excessive contact with both intentional and flagrant fouls. You have to judge the type of excessive contact before you decide whether the foul should be "intentional" or "flagrant". As the rules state, if the contact is violent, savage or you felt the intent was to injure, you call it "flagrant". It is always a judgment call.

A flagrant foul is ejection. Period. An intentional foul isn't. They're separate fouls defined under separate rules.

Forget about intentional when thinking "flagrant".

I don't think I ever said an intentional is flagrant in nature. I think I said a flagrant might look like an intentional only it would be more extreme. At least that's what I meant to say.

Yup, I got that point very clearly.
I get this too. No problem with any of this.
i get this too.
But you said that when there's excessive contact, I may have to judge between flagrant and intentional. I'm not just picking nits here. To me, it appears as though a flagrant personal foul is very similar -- different, I understand, but similar -- to an intentional. So I can't just "forget about intentional when thinking flagrant."

And obviously from the OP, and from other discussions we've had in the past, I'm not the only one who has trouble with this. That's why I'm trying to sort it out in my mind. Let me try again to put all this into a structure that I can hold onto. Everytime I botch it up, and y'all correct it, I get closer to something workable, and eventually, I'll be able to do it correctly.

Next iteration:

A flagrant foul is violent or savage in nature, or is extremely unsportsmanlike. Excessive contact during a live ball should be deemed an intentional foul, unless judged to be violent or savage in which case it is a flagrant foul. The penalty for a live-ball-flagrant foul is two shots by the player who took the foul, possession to that player's team, and ejection of the fouling player.


I guess the other part of this that's confusing is the use of the word flagrant as a sort of adjective for other situations, such as a flagrant technical. I am a word person, and I need the words to fall into their proper places. When one word has many different proper places, it gives me problems. Sort of like 95% of the rest of the world.

flagrant personal foul is not just another T signal

T's are T's... those that arent arent

That (the signal) is the part I know I messed up. I should not have signaled intentional.

so a flagrant foul is to be shot by the person who was fouled? If this person can't shoot it can any player on the floor or bench shoot?
If it is a flagrant technical I assume any player can shoot the fts. For intentional the player fouled shoots correct?

Technical, any player can shoot. Flagrant personal, player who was fouled will shoot. If that player was injured, the substitute will shoot.

.

Splitting hairs, are we?

8-3: The free throw awarded because of a technical foul may be attempted by any player of the offended team, including an eligible substitute.......

I assumed everyone knew that players, in this case, included eligible substitutes, who actually cannot shoot at all, until they check in, thus becoming players.

I Want My 10% ...
 

"T's are T's, those that aren't aren't." © 2010 Kelvin green