Ejection math 101

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Last week in a game between Golden State Warriors and the Orlando Magic, the Warriors were Intentionally fouling Dwight Howard (grabbing him without the ball) to put him on the free throw line (he had 39 attempts). From the highlights that I saw, even though they were Intentional, they was nothing that would raise to the level Flagrant, if it would have been in a high school. So just because there is many intentional foul, that does not mean you escalate to flagrant fouls.

Don't confuse rule sets (NBA and NFHS).

Don't confuse the name of the foul (intentional) with the requirements for the call (intent is neither necessary nor sufficient).

And in a high school game, if someone was repeatedly grabbing a player without the ball, a bunch of those are going to be upgraded to intentional fouls. There won't be any need to consider upgrading to flagrant after that, as the tactic will stop once it's no longer beneficial.

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by mbyron

the responses here are hinting at 1 feature of the rules and 1 feature of how the game is called:

Rules: By rule, there is no limit on the number of intentional personal or intentional technical fouls that can be called on a player, as such. The standard limit of 5 personal or 2 technical fouls in a game still result in disqualification.

Calling it: An intentional personal foul is called when either a player uses excessive force or neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage. For the latter, few will seriously consider "upgrading" to a flagrant.

If a player has gotten an int for excessive force, many would consider that a kind of "warning" to the player and coach that this level of force is not appropriate for the game. A second or third such foul would reflect the player's or coach's unwillingness to adjust to the game. Some would consider persistently excessive force sufficiently "violent" to fall under the definition of a flagrant foul.

Others would say that a foul is a foul: It's either int or flagrant, and can't be called based on the game situation.

+1

[Scooby]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Don't confuse rule sets (NBA and NFHS).

Don't confuse the name of the foul (intentional) with the requirements for the call (intent is neither necessary nor sufficient).

And in a high school game, if someone was repeatedly grabbing a player without the ball, a bunch of those are going to be upgraded to intentional fouls. There won't be any need to consider upgrading to flagrant after that, as the tactic will stop once it's no longer beneficial.

I was not confusing rule sets. I was using it as an example of contact that is an intentional foul, and that would not be upgraded to flagrant after multiple fouls. Nor did I say that this is a useful tactic in a game under the NFHS rule set.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Yup, although it's doubtful a coach would let a player who's doing that stay in.

Unless, of course, your the varsity coach of the Connell High School basketball team.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Last week in a game between Golden State Warriors and the Orlando Magic, the Warriors were Intentionally fouling Dwight Howard (grabbing him without the ball) to put him on the free throw line (he had 39 attempts)

Dwight Howard broke Wilt Chamberlain's nearly 50-year-old NBA record for most free throw attempts in a game, making 21 of 39 attempts.

[constable]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So in theory you can have 5 intentionals in a game?

If any one cares in FIBA a player gets ejected once they accumulate 2 unsporting ( FIBA term for Intentional) fouls. They must then go to the dressing room or leave the building.