Flagrant/Intentional

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It wasn't flagrant, then, or she wouldn't have played any more of that game.

Originally Posted by Cav0

The team in black received 2 free throws and retained possession.

So the official must have ruled it an intentional personal foul. I could live with that, but I would have gone flagrant personal foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot tell if this is a "get off me" shove or a full out punch to the chest of face.

My first look had the former, so I'd have an intentional.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bainsey

My first look had the former, so I'd have an intentional.

Same here.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Cav0

I always enjoy reading this board and don't post much because I'm not an official, but do love to read and learn from the people here. This play was discussed at a recent game I was helping at the table for and the video was posted on youtube so that I could see it and I'd be interested to get your opinions on it.

Easiest flagrant ever. See ya sista.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Easiest flagrant ever. See ya sista.

Ooh, I have a prediction. Let's see if it comes true.

[twocentsworth]

without any doubt in my mind....that is a flagrant foul (NFHS) or flagrant 2 (NCAA). Player ejected; 2 FT's for defense; ball put in at mid-court (NFHS) or ball put in at spot nearest foul (NCAA).

I would go to my partner (as the calling official did), tell them what I have, and ONLY change my call if they they me they saw the play and STRONGLY disagreed.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Here is what I saw on the video.

It appeared the B-24 made illegal contact with her right hand on W-24's left arm and the covering official did not consider the contact a foul. W-24 then punched B-24 in her face with her left hand. Since the ball was Live, when W-24 punched B-24, the foul is a PF and since it was a punch it was a FPF and W-24 should have been disqualified from the game. The covering official incorrectly signaled a TF.

But if the covering official intended to call a PF on B-24 but did not have time to react to B-24's PF against W-24 then W-24's contact was a FTF because her contact was made when the ball was Dead, and we now have FDF.

On a side note, in what state was this game played. I dig the gray officiating shirts.

MTD, Sr.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So tell me exactly what are the mechanics for a flagrant foul. There is no signal for "flagrant." What is preliminary? How do you report to the table?

NFHS has no "official" mechanic for a flagrant foul. This kind of thing is much more about game management than precise mechanics anyway. Here's what I would do:

1. Call the foul as the official did, but not signal a T (one thing this cannot be).
2. Given that we have a strange situation that's potentially volatile (esp. if it had been boys), I'm immediately sending both teams toward their benches.
3. Then I can talk to my partners and talk through whether I want to go INT or flagrant on this.
4. Next I report the foul to the table: white, 24, intentional/flagrant foul, (24 is disqualified if flagrant); I use the football DQ signal (thumb back over your shoulder) for a DQ.
5. We just don't have many of these fouls in the leagues I work: I would get the coaches together in front of the table, tell them what I saw, and why I decided to go intentional or flagrant. I'll answer a reasonable question or two, but it's not a debate.
6. I might also tell them (esp. if it had been boys) that we have addressed the problem, and we won't have any retaliation later in the game.
7. Shoot FT's with the lane cleared, give the ball to the fouled team at the spot, and play on.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

without any doubt in my mind....that is a flagrant foul (NFHS) or flagrant 2 (NCAA). Player ejected; 2 FT's for defense; ball put in at mid-court (NFHS) or ball put in at spot nearest foul (NCAA).

Nope.

Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, this throw in should be at the spot nearest the foul in NFHS.

[Raymond]

I have a flagrant personal foul on A1 based I'm what I'm seeing from this angle.

Might have had a foul on B1 first in that situation.

[IUgrad92]

To say that Blue made illegal contact is a 'guess' from anyone, based on the camera angle. At the time Blue slaps down at the ball, you cannot see either Blue's left hand, W24 hands, or even the ball. That's called being 'straight-lined'. It appears that C didn't have the best angle, and L was straight-lined as well, thus no initial call.

W24's strike to the face/head is a flagarant act. If, and a big if at that, this was a 'push off', then W24 chose the wrong body part. She definitely had other options, but targetted the head.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I have a flagrant personal foul on A1 based I'm what I'm seeing from this angle.

Might have had a foul on B1 first in that situation.

Ok, so let's say we call the foul on B1, and then A1 retaliates after the whistle for B's foul. Then B1 gets the common foul, and A1 is disqualified with a Flagrant T, correct?

If so, then the order of operations would be:
1) false double foul (common on B1, flagrant T on A1).
2) A1 is disqualified.
2) A1's replacement shoots 1-2 FTs (if A is in the bonus), with the lane cleared.
3) Any player(s) or substitute(s) for B shoot 2 FTs for the flagrant T.
4) Throw-in for B at division line opposite table.

Did I get that right?

[Welpe]

Never mind...case of the Mondays got me.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

Ok, so let's say we call the foul on B1, and then A1 retaliates after the whistle for B's foul. Then B1 gets the common foul, and A1 is disqualified with a Flagrant T, correct?

4) Throw-in for B at division line opposite table.

Did I get that right?

Originally Posted by Welpe

Almost but this one is not correct.

Seems right to me. . .

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Almost but this one is not correct.

Why not?