Flagrant/Intentional

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cav0

Sorry I can't tell you anymore, I wasn't there. Based on what was described to me, the player was not ejected and participated further in the game and the team in black received 2 free throws and retained possession, though I do not know the spot of the following throw-in. I said intentional or flagrant, since those would both carry that result (without knowing the spot of the throw-in).

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

[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.

[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.

[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?