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)

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.

Rut in his post (Post #12) makes very valid and very true points.

I am not a fan of the NCAA definitions for IF and FF (both PF and TF). My primary reason for my position is that the NCAA has been making the TF section of Rule 10 more complex (and incomprehensible) over the last ten years or so. Keeping in mind that the NCAA and NFHS Rules are really decendents of the NBCUSC, and the NFHS has kept it TF section of Rule 10 more in line with the NBCUSC, I think that the NFHS is the better foundation for rewriting the appropriate sections of Rules 4 and 10.

A personal observation: The TF secion of NCAA R10 has become and abomination (that word was for you Billy) upon the game. I am an intelligent person. I am a structural engineer with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering with minors in mechanical engineering and mathematics, and yet the NCAA TF rule is absolutely stupid and just is not necessary. Rule 10 as written in the NFHS can take care of any problem that could happen in a NCAA game. The players are bigger, faster, quicker, and stronger now than in the late 1960's but the rules with some minor changes (3-pt FG and AP) could be applied today and one would not notice a difference in how the game is played.

MTD, Sr.