Flagrant and Ejection
 

8th grade girls last night. Both teams in double bonus. H up 2, inbounding following made basket. V is pressing and as H1 takes the ball down the sideline in front of the table, V1 runs up behind H1 and pushes her, 2 hands in the middle of the back, driving her to the floor. I hit the whistle and signal intentional foula dn go to report. as I indicate that the girl is ejection, V coach tells me "Not a problem; she's done." He then began forceful coaching of the girl on what she had done wrong. Taht was nice to see.

We administered 2 FT with lane clear and had H! throw in at the POI.

Two questions: Should there have been more FTs? I said no since it was one act. My partner later thought 2 additional FTs (double bonus plus flagrant). I told him I was pretty sure we did it right, but I would check. (We both feel we are getting better on our mechanics and take whatever opportunity we can to reinforce that are doing things the right way.)
Secondly, what is the proper mechanic in this situation? I've called interntional before, but never a flagrant and ejection.

Thanks in advance.

POI, or spot nearest of violation???? POI shouldn't be a factor.

Nearest Violation. Dribbler was fouled just past division line and that is where we did the throw in.

Did you call an intention foul or a flagrant foul? For this play i would have called a flagrant foul which is just another technical signal + ejection signal (or this is what I would do however I've never had a flagrant foul yet).

I called flagrant t the table, but, honestly, here is how I did it and I know I am wrong.
I hit the whistle, fist in the air, then signaled intentional. In this situation, the coach of the team that fouled wouldn't have cared what I signaled because he was one the girl quicker than anyone else was.

As I had said, I want to get the mechanics correct.

Not A "T"....It was a live ball ..This cannot be a technical in this case....Only a flagrant or intentional foul; 2 shots plus the the ball at the point nearest the foul.

It doesn't have to be either/or flagrant/ intentional, it can be both. And it's definitely NOT a T, you're right about that, refiator. You've got the penalty right.

Use the intentional foul signal, tell the coach and the table it's flagrant and then administer the shots same as any other intentional foul.

That's what I did. Guess I get lucky sometimes. :)

Thanks for the responses. I read the forum often and it really has been helpful.

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).

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.

Yep

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.

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

NFHS Forum: flagrant foul reporting

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

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

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

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