Flagrant and Ejection

[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.