NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology

[Duffman]

What do you like better?

Personally I prefer the NcAA terminology. I've called intentional fouls for swinging elbows and contact to the face/head twice and both times I've had to at length explain that intentional has nothing to do with intent and is instead just terminology, and confusing terminology at that. Does anyone know why the NHSF uses that terminology;?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Duffman

What do you like better?

Personally I prefer the NcAA terminology. I've called intentional fouls for swinging elbows and contact to the face/head twice and both times I've had to at length explain that intentional has nothing to do with intent and is instead just terminology, and confusing terminology at that. Does anyone know why the NHSF uses that terminology;?

All fine except that the NFHS hasn't adopted the NCAA standard that says that fouls to the head must be called intentional (flagrant 1) or flagrant (flagrant 2).

So, the fact that you've got a foul to the head in NFHS means it should probably be a common foul unless there actually was intent or excessive contact....Current NFHS rules and interpretations don't support anything else.

That said, I agree that getting away from the terminology of "intentional" would be a good thing for the reasons you mention.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by Duffman

What do you like better?

Personally I prefer the NcAA terminology. I've called intentional fouls for swinging elbows and contact to the face/head twice and both times I've had to at length explain that intentional has nothing to do with intent and is instead just terminology, and confusing terminology at that. Does anyone know why the NHSF uses that terminology;?

The NCAA terminology is stupid.... Flagrant 1 or 2? Intentional fouls is also not the best term to use as intent is not required.

All that is needed is to change intentional to something else like major.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

What do you like better?

Personally I prefer the NcAA terminology. I've called intentional fouls for swinging elbows and contact to the face/head twice and both times I've had to at length explain that intentional has nothing to do with intent and is instead just terminology, and confusing terminology at that. Does anyone know why the NHSF uses that terminology;?

I know I only have a paragraph here to go on, but this makes it seem as if you're spending way too much time explaining these calls ("at length.") If the coach isn't satisfied with "elbow to the head," then giving him an at length explanation of what inentional foul means isn't going to help.

Also, what Camron said. It isn't an automatic in high school.

[Duffman]

At lenght simply means longer than it needed to be.

Coach: What do you have

Me: She cleared herself by swinging her elbows, it was excessive and unsafe, and her elbow caught the other girl in the nose, we have an intentional foul

Coach: But she didn't mean to do it.

Me: I know, it's just called intentional by the book, it has nothing to do with intent.

Coach: But you said intentional

.....

The discussion always seems to revolve around the terminology and not the action itself.

[Adam]

I see. I would just stick with telling him it was an elbow to the face and you considered it excessive.

In your conversation, I personally would have walked away at "But she didn't mean to do it." He obviously doesn't know the rule, and he isn't going to learn it in a sideline rules clinic.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I see. I would just stick with telling him it was an elbow to the face and you considered it excessive.

In your conversation, I personally would have walked away at "But she didn't mean to do it." He obviously doesn't know the rule, and he isn't going to learn it in a sideline rules clinic.

Agreed. And the reaility is that if he weren't disupting the language he'd just be disputing something else because he's the coach and that's what he thinks he's supposed to do.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I see. I would just stick with telling him it was an elbow to the face and you considered it excessive.

In your conversation, I personally would have walked away at "But she didn't mean to do it."

"Yes, I know. That's why it wasn't flagrant."

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I see. I would just stick with telling him it was an elbow to the face and you considered it excessive.

There it is. "In high school, Coach, excessive means intentional."

As for the wording itself, I'm particular with words myself, and I get that intentional doesn't require intent (seems counter-intuitive), but IMO, it still beats "flagrant 1" and "flagrant 2." There are 400,000 words in the English language ("and seven of them you can never say on television" -- George Carlin), so you'd think they could come with a synonymous word that could differentiate a hard foul from a disqualifying foul.

[SNIPERBBB]

How about we just split the intentional foul to intentional and excessive.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Duffman

What do you like better?

Personally I prefer the NcAA terminology. I've called intentional fouls for swinging elbows and contact to the face/head twice and both times I've had to at length explain that intentional has nothing to do with intent and is instead just terminology, and confusing terminology at that. Does anyone know why the NHSF uses that terminology;?

I'm not sure what area or level you're talking about but any varsity coach around here knows its just terminology and i doubt will ever make the "well he didn't intend to" argument. The intentional foul terminology has been around forever, hasn't it? At least in my Rome everyone knows what it means (or doesn't, as the case may be)

[APG]

I think going to the "flagrant 1" and "flagrant 2" terminology is better for fans, players and coaches. Too many people take the word "intentional" literally to mean intent. On the other hand, most fans, players, and coaches are already used to the flagrant 1/2 usage due to the NBA already using it.