Flagrant foul during the shot

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by jargo9

Last night a call was made when A1 was in the air during a layup and was elbowed from behind by B1. The referee called an intentional foul(should this be a flagrant1?) and sent the player to the line for 2 shots and the ball. MY QUESTION- If the player was in the act of shooting (2 FT) and the intentional foul was called (2 FT) shouldnt the offense get a total of 4 free throws w/ no defense in the lane plus the ball under the basket?

If you're talking about the Villanova vs WV game it was a good call by the official (IMO). V player had a clear layup and was shoved from the back "intentionally" by the WV player with no intent to play the ball.

It was called against WV, in their home venue, with little to no discussion or argument about the call from the home team.......ok, the fans were none too happy!

[jargo9]

Originally Posted by grunewar

If you're talking about the Villanova vs WV game it was a good call by the official (IMO). V player had a clear layup and was shoved from the back "intentionally" by the WV player with no intent to play the ball.

It was called against WV, in their home venue, with little to no discussion or argument about the call from the home team.......ok, the fans were none too happy!

I was referring to a high school game last night. I did not see the WV vs Vill game unfortunately.

[jargo9]

Does this not seem to reward a defensive player to foul "harder"(if you will) to ensure that if a flagrant/intentional is called that he doesnt make the basket?

I have also found online that it says the player should receive the 2FT for the intentional and the 2 on the shot. I will try to post the link.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by jargo9

Does this not seem to reward a defensive player to foul "harder"(if you will) to ensure that if a flagrant/intentional is called that he doesnt make the basket?

I have also found online that it says the player should receive the 2FT for the intentional and the 2 on the shot. I will try to post the link.

Whatever you found online is simply not accurate.

And I don't see the logic behind the "reward"...unless the player knows he's going to foul intentionally and therefore fouls harder to prevent the basket. If the player is already processing that he's going to foul intentionally, he's probably going to do what he can to prevent the make anyway.

Intentional fouls carry the additional penalty of rewarding the offended team the ball. It's already more severe than a common foul. If the player adds enough "extra" to an intentional foul it can be deemed flagrant, which carries the same on-court penalties plus disqualifies the offending player.

By your logic (rewarding an additional 2 shots if the try is unsuccessful) we should also add one additional shot if the try is successful (one for the 'and 1' and two for the intentional foul).

The rule is pretty clear, and I've never seen an incident that would make me re-think its appropriateness.

[jargo9]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Whatever you found online is simply not accurate.

And I don't see the logic behind the "reward"...unless the player knows he's going to foul intentionally and therefore fouls harder to prevent the basket. If the player is already processing that he's going to foul intentionally, he's probably going to do what he can to prevent the make anyway.

Intentional fouls carry the additional penalty of rewarding the offended team the ball. It's already more severe than a common foul. If the player adds enough "extra" to an intentional foul it can be deemed flagrant, which carries the same on-court penalties plus disqualifies the offending player.

By your logic (rewarding an additional 2 shots if the try is unsuccessful) we should also add one additional shot if the try is successful (one for the 'and 1' and two for the intentional foul).

The rule is pretty clear, and I've never seen an incident that would make me re-think its appropriateness.

Not to split hairs here but you said "unless the player knows he's going to foul intentionally " wouldnt by definition the word INTENTIONAL cover him knowing he was going to commit a foul of this nature?

I guess all i am saying is if an intentional/flagrant foul is commited during the non-shooting act the offensive team should not receive the same reward as during the shot(my opinion)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jargo9

I guess all i am saying is if an intentional/flagrant foul is commited during the non-shooting act the offensive team should not receive the same reward as during the shot(my opinion)

So then you're encouraging the defender to foul sooner is all.

Submit a rule change suggestion granting an extra free throw for intentional fouls committed against players in the act of shooting.

[jargo9]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

So then you're encouraging the defender to foul sooner is all.

Submit a rule change suggestion granting an extra free throw for intentional fouls committed against players in the act of shooting.

This happened last night during the Syracuse game and I still didnt like the fact that they didnt get a 3rd free throw. BUT...atleast i got to see the rule in full force! Thanks for the help on the forum.

BTW- I am trying to get into officiating and was wondering if you had any suggestions?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by jargo9

Not to split hairs here but you said "unless the player knows he's going to foul intentionally " wouldnt by definition the word INTENTIONAL cover him knowing he was going to commit a foul of this nature?

There is a difference between the dictionary definition of 'intentional' and the rulebook definition of 'intentional foul.' There are many times that fouls that are committed intentionally (think end of game needing to put someone on the line) are not called as intentional fouls (by rule).

Originally Posted by jargo9

I guess all i am saying is if an intentional/flagrant foul is commited during the non-shooting act the offensive team should not receive the same reward as during the shot(my opinion)

I understand that and can see your argument. I disagree, but that doesn't really matter in practice as neither of us make the rules. And the rule is clear on the penalty here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jargo9

Not to split hairs here but you said "unless the player knows he's going to foul intentionally " wouldnt by definition the word INTENTIONAL cover him knowing he was going to commit a foul of this nature?

Maybe the Webster's definition, but not the NFHS definition.

[jargo9]

Another flagrant foul question for this debacle....

Lets say A1 was fouled(personal) by B1 during the shot but during the shot
A2 was flagrant/intentional foul by B2.....Wouldnt both A1 and A2 both receive 2 free throws each?

[johnsonboys03]

I read it in case play somewhere that you don't shoot 4 foul shots. Two and the ball unless a missed three point attempt. One that doesn't seem right at first look but makes much more sense the longer you look at it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jargo9

Not to split hairs here but you said "unless the player knows he's going to foul intentionally " wouldnt by definition the word INTENTIONAL cover him knowing he was going to commit a foul of this nature?

I guess all i am saying is if an intentional/flagrant foul is commited during the non-shooting act the offensive team should not receive the same reward as during the shot(my opinion)

You need to take this argument up with the rules makers. We enforce the rules, we don't write them.

[GtuddaC]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Whatever you found online is simply not accurate.

And I don't see the logic behind the "reward"...unless the player knows he's going to foul intentionally and therefore fouls harder to prevent the basket. If the player is already processing that he's going to foul intentionally, he's probably going to do what he can to prevent the make anyway.

Intentional fouls carry the additional penalty of rewarding the offended team the ball. It's already more severe than a common foul. If the player adds enough "extra" to an intentional foul it can be deemed flagrant, which carries the same on-court penalties plus disqualifies the offending player.

By your logic (rewarding an additional 2 shots if the try is unsuccessful) we should also add one additional shot if the try is successful (one for the 'and 1' and two for the intentional foul).

The rule is pretty clear, and I've never seen an incident that would make me re-think its appropriateness.

Well, if in fact the rule is as you say it is, you ARE rewarding the team who committed the foul. The "intention" when committing an "intentional foul" comes from purposely fouling a player without employing a "basketball move". If this is the rule in place, what is there to stop a team from intentionally fouling on every possesion. If you dont want to call it "rewarding the offending team", you are ATLEAST penalizing the offended team for being in the act of shooting when the intentional foul was committed.

Also, under the rule as you say it is, the offending teams shot attempt should be waved off regardless of make/miss. They should only get the 2 technical fouls shots and the ball.

Otherwise, this entire rule is inappropriate. Entirely too much gray area.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by GtuddaC

If this is the rule in place, what is there to stop a team from intentionally fouling on every possesion.

The fact that the offended team receives two shots and possession of the ball.

This is a silly argument.

[APG]

That fact is you'll find that in none of the codes do you penalize an intentional/flagrant foul (or their equivalents in other codes) during a try with two shots for the act of shooting plus two shots for the intentional/flagrant.

NFHS: 2 shots + ball unless it's a missed three point attempt
NCAA: Same as NFHS
NBA (Flagrant Type I/Type II): 2 shots+ball unless a missed three point shot. If a made basket, the opponent would have a 2 free throw attempts to make 1.

All three bodies deem the penalty of free throws, possession, and possible ejection enough of a penalty.