Flagrant and Ejection

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

It doesn't have to be either/or flagrant/ intentional, it can be both.

No, it can't.

Since the ball was live, and it was a contact foul, it's personal.

It might be an intentional personal ("x" signal; 2 Fts by fouled player, ball at spot nearest foul).

It might be a flagrant personal (no specified signal, 2 Fts by fouled player, ball at spot nearest foul).

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, it can't.

Since the ball was live, and it was a contact foul, it's personal.

It might be an intentional personal ("x" signal; 2 Fts by fouled player, ball at spot nearest foul).

It might be a flagrant personal (no specified signa;, 2 FTs by any eligible team member; ball at spot nearest foul).

After I entered that, I started re-thinking it so I went and looked it up. I can't find a reference that says either/or, but then I can't find anything that says I'm right either. I'm sure you're right, since I've never known you to be otherwise. But can you give me some rule references?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

After I entered that, I started re-thinking it so I went and looked it up. I can't find a reference that says either/or, but then I can't find anything that says I'm right either. I'm sure you're right, since I've never known you to be otherwise. But can you give me some rule references?

Definition of flagrant foul is 4-19-4.

The confusing thing is that a part of definition is that "it may or may not be intentional."

I believe in this case intentional is only an adjective.

IOW, a flagrant foul can be committed by accident.

[Jurassic Referee]

Seems to be a common misconception......

NFHS Forum: flagrant foul reporting

Maybre BillyMac needs to put this one on his list of misunderstood rules.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, it can't.

Since the ball was live, and it was a contact foul, it's personal.

It might be an intentional personal ("x" signal; 2 Fts by fouled player, ball at spot nearest foul).

It might be a flagrant personal (no specified signal, 2 FTs by any eligible team member; ball at spot nearest foul).

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

bob's right, it does have to be either flagrant or intentional; not both. Different penalties. It is, however, personal. The difference is the fouled player has to shoot the FTs (or her sub), and the ball is taken out at the spot nearet the foul.

No, the difference is that the offender is disqualified on a flagrant personal foul. The rest is the same as an intentional personal.

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

After I entered that, I started re-thinking it so I went and looked it up. I can't find a reference that says either/or, but then I can't find anything that says I'm right either. I'm sure you're right, since I've never known you to be otherwise. But can you give me some rule references?

Actually, bob is not fully correct this time. I've highlighted the part of his post which is incorrect. The rest is good though.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, bob is not fully correct this time. I've highlighted the part of his post which is incorrect. The rest is good though.

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

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?!

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

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?

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".

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Yup, I got that point very clearly.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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..

I get this too. No problem with any of this.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

i get this too.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Forget about intentional when thinking "flagrant".

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.