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?
|
Wed Jul 26, 2000, 11:57am
Threaded Mode
