Hey Mark,

Well, I have never had a problem with a coach being confused following a intentional foul call. I really don't see any need to move to an NBA model.

About mechanics - I have my own pet peeve on this one. I wish that there was a NF signal for calling a timeout. FIBA has a separate signal for timeout (single digit touching palm of other hand over head) and for a technical (all digits touching palm of other hand in front of the body). Not to have a mechanic for timeout seems silly.

Cheers,
David

When the NF added the proviso that you could call an intentional foul if the defender was going for the ball but used excessive force, I thought it was a good idea. I still do, except I think the terminology should be changed.

In the NBA, there are two levels of flagrant fouls. Level one is really the same theory as the NF "excessive force" intentional - that is, the foul was hard enough to rank above a standard personal, but not hard enough to warrant ejection. Level two is the same as the NF flagrant (plus a fine - wouldn't that be cool at the high school level - just kidding).

Why don't we end the confusion coaches have when we call an intentional for excessive force when the player is playing the ball and just use the NBA model which is more accurate in it's description?

And - while we're on the subject - how about a standard mechanic signal for a flagrant foul?

I am confused at what Mark's issue is. NF allows for intentional fouls, two shots plus ball, and flagrant fouls, two shots, ball and ejection. If you have intentional foul and you don't think its bad enough to warrant ejection, it is intentional only. If you think it crosses the line, it is flagrant. I am sure I am missing somehting here because Mark always has an angle that I haven't considered (although, since I am a coach and he is a ref, my angle is always better http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif )

I think the confusion comes from "intentional" suggesting the player actually intended to commit the foul, as opposed to simply too much force. Shoot, if we could really read minds, half the fouls would be intentional!

As for mechanics, I've never called a flagrant foul, but I suppose the crossed arms are simply followed by the ejection signal used in baseball (without the full body motion, of course -- after all, we do our jobs without any sign of emotion http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif).

If the question is merely an appropriae signal to distinguish the intentional from the flagrant, then there should be a new flagrant foul signal that consists of physically throwing the offending player off the court. If done with sufficient force, this adds the element of the punishment fitting the crime.

If the referee lacks the physical capacity to perform this act, he can utilize Mike Tyson, since Mike will soon find himself unable to box in any state or country and be forced to perform menial tasks to earn money (having contributed his winnings to Don King). A backup thrower will be Bobby knight, who is accustomed both to physcially abusing basketball players and to throwing things. This is assuming he will do something stupid enough that IU will see fit to fire him.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach:
[b]I am confused at what Mark's issue is. NF allows for intentional fouls, two shots plus ball, and flagrant fouls, two shots, ball and ejection. If you have intentional foul and you don't think its bad enough to warrant ejection, it is intentional only. If you think it crosses the line, it is flagrant. I am sure I am missing somehting here because Mark always has an angle that I haven't considered


The "angle" here is that I think we should call a foul intentional only if there was intent to gain an advantage, like stopping the clock when behind. But if a player is going for the ball, does a bad job of it and uses excessive force, there was no intent to foul to gain an advantage so this (assuming the contact was REALLY hard) should be called a flagrant level one. If there was incredibly excessive force and/or an intent to injure, then it should be a flagrant level two, just like in the NBA.

The penalty for a flagrant level one would be exactly the same as it is now for an intentional foul. I'm not lobbying for a change in the penalty for this type of foul, just to use proper terminology. I have had coaches question the intentional call when a player was going for the ball but knocked over the ball handler in doing so. Explaining it as a lower level flagrant seems to make much more sense.

As to you having a better angle than me, maybe you'd like the angle better from the parking lot, buddy. http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif





[This message has been edited by Mark Padgett (edited July 26, 2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Ogg:

As for mechanics, I've never called a flagrant foul, but I suppose the crossed arms are simply followed by the ejection signal used in baseball ).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't use the crossed arms in NF unless the foul is intentional. For a flagrant personal, there is no separate signal. There should be.

In my association, we raise the fist, then make the "You're outta here" baseball gesture.

Mark
Fiba removed the intentional foul because it was quite hard for Referees to know the intent of a player.They replaced it with an unsportsmanlike foul. This made it easy to judge. (ie; hard foul which was approx the old intentional)the disqualifying was left as is and I believe that this change is working very well in fiba games.

As for signals why not adopt those used in Fiba.

luke

I think that NF

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
When the NF added the proviso that you could call an intentional foul if the defender was going for the ball but used excessive force, I thought it was a good idea. I still do, except I think the terminology should be changed.

In the NBA, there are two levels of flagrant fouls. Level one is really the same theory as the NF "excessive force" intentional - that is, the foul was hard enough to rank above a standard personal, but not hard enough to warrant ejection. Level two is the same as the NF flagrant (plus a fine - wouldn't that be cool at the high school level - just kidding).

Why don't we end the confusion coaches have when we call an intentional for excessive force when the player is playing the ball and just use the NBA model which is more accurate in it's description?

And - while we're on the subject - how about a standard mechanic signal for a flagrant foul?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by luke:
Mark
As for signals why not adopt those used in Fiba.

luke<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know how to signal in metric http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

I guess I don't see the difficulty here.

Intentional Foul/Hard Foul: The signal is the same, what you call it verbally is different. ESPECIALLY when you are reporting it to the bench. Don't think any coach worth their salt is going to have any issues with that.

Flagrant Foul: The signal is a "T". I'll admit that I'll usually follow it with an old-fashioned baseball ejection signal towards the bench. We also have a requirement to inform the player and the coach that he is ejected. Again, I don't think coaches are going to have an issue with the mechanic.

I don't feel that changes are necessary, as both of the above fouls are rarely called.

My $.02 worth.

The now retired,
Brian Johnson

I agree that it might make things cleaner in some respects to divide out three types of fouls, intentional, hard but not flagrant, and flagrant. But you can get there by calling a hard foul as an intentional foul if you really feel you need to distinguish it from a common foul but not eject the player. If a coach whines, tell him you considered a flagrant and determined this was only an intentional. In my experience, its usually the other bench that complains because they want the ejection. This will be worsened by level 1 and level 2 hard fouls.

I fail to see a compelling argument for an additional category of "special" fouls. I remember the days before you had even intentional and flagrant. I think that both of these are a great idea, but it just seems that you could split hairs forever on this.

If it's hard enough that you think you need a flagrant, call it. If appears unintentional but excessively hard, warn the player and call a common foul. If it is hard and intentional, call intentional.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PublicBJ:
Flagrant Foul: The signal is a "T". Brian Johnson<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't use the T signal for a flagrant personal foul. My point is that there is no official signal for this in NF. We should have one. If we did have one for flagrant level one and a different but similar one for flagrant level two, everything would be immediately clear to everyone as to what the call is. That means coaches can start yelling quicker. http://www.refereeforum.com/ubb/wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Geneva">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Padgett:

And - while we're on the subject - how about a standard mechanic signal for a flagrant foul?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a newbie this last season, I have had one major peeve. The book says over and over, to never use a signal that isn't authorized, namely in the book. But then it gives no official signal for something that happens six times in every game -- namely the full time-out.What a mixed message!!

Several other signals would be helpful such as the flagrant mentioned above ( I personally like the "you're out of there" thumb thing -- it's clear and expressive), a referee's time out, an actual official signal for calling subs onto the floor, and maybe a couple of the violations such as lane violation, and the various out of bound related violations.

Since we're on the sub. of Jumper violation. NF needs to change the rule. Jumper violation, the arrow should go to the team that violated following the throwin.

I agree about bumping up the signals. This situation doesn't happen very often, but when it does people are very confused because there is no signal - Jump Ball Violations.

I had a jumper cath the ball the other day.
I called the violation, but the arrow was screwed, and the coaches (remember this is summer league so they only know the reach, over-the-back, and 3-second rules) were mystified when I gave the arrow to the non-offending team later in the quarter. To make it worse I had to over rule my partner, because he thought the coach were right.