intentional vs flagrant

[Ptflea2]

So you are not disqualified after an intentional foul?

[tref]

Correct, flagrant technical/personal result in DQs.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Ptflea2

So you are not disqualified after an intentional foul?

NO!!!!

Peace

[bainsey]

In NFHS, flagrant=disqualification.

As for your examples, severity of the contact and intent could help determine whether this is flagrant or intentional. Example 1 sounds intentional, at the very least. Example 2 sounds common.

[Ptflea2]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

no!!!!

Peace

thank you!!!!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ptflea2

I agree with you, I'm not as sharp as I need to be with the definitions of these two fouls. During my free time at work, I try and spend some time on my rules knowledge and application. Kinda hard to do when you don't have your rule book right?(which I stated in the first post) It's been bothering me all morning that I can't come up with the differences between the two so I came on here to try and remedy that.

Has this helped?

[Ptflea2]

Very much. You spread it out easily:

1. Personal
a) common
b) shooting
c) intentional
d) flagrant

2. Technical
a) unsporting
b) intentional


However, what is the difference between 1. C and 2. B ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ptflea2

Very much. You spread it out easily:

1. Personal
a) common
b) shooting
c) intentional
d) flagrant

2. Technical
a) unsporting
b) intentional
c) flagrant

However, what is the difference between 1. C and 2. B ?

1C is a live ball contact foul (such as your example.)
2B is a dead ball contact foul. Dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is either intentional or flagrant. (I added 2C above)

[Gargil]

It depends how you interpit the "spirit of the Rule"

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1C is a live ball contact foul (such as your example.)
2B is a dead ball contact foul. Dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is either intentional or flagrant. (I added 2C above)

Generally true, but not precisely correct. You are overlooking one aspect.

[Mark Padgett]

I've always used the following guidelines for determining if a foul was flagrant. If the fouling player displayed an intent to injure or showed an utter disregard for the safety of the player he fouled, then it's flagrant.

I know these determinations are still subjective, but I think that the more experience you have, the more qualified you will be to make a decision on whether or not the foul met those guidelines based on all the play you've seen over the years and the context of that particular foul.

As the saying goes, there's no substitute for experience. At least, that's what the sexy lady down on the corner tells me.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

As the saying goes, there's no substitute for experience. At least, that's what the sexy lady down on the corner tells me.

I'm guessing experience has made her less sexy.

[Ptflea2]

Thanks Snaqwells. Lets hope I don't have to call either in my men's league tonight.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Ptflea2

Thanks Snaqwells. Lets hope I don't have to call either in my men's league tonight.

Embrace the opportunity to handle these situations in the off-season should they arise. When they come up in sanctioned games, your experience will make you look as good as gold!

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm guessing experience has made her less sexy.

I would have thought Padgett would have given this response to his own quote. Well played .