NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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

And give them the same signal.

[JRutledge]

I have been an advocate for years that the term "Intentional Foul" needed to be changed. It always seems that the focus is on that wording rather than the action. At least Flagrant 1 for example lets it be known that the action is unacceptable and carries a different penalty as intentional.

I think the coaches, players and everyone get caught up in the language and not the action. I have called many intentional fouls over the years and I can barely think of a time, "It was not done intentionally" as a part of the debate. I wish the NF would change their terminology as well, but it is not going to happen.

Peace

[VaTerp]

I am also one who doesnt like the term intentional and think it should be replaced with something else. Be it moving toward what the NCAA and NBA do or something else.

And I hate to be that guy (well, not really) but the word is FLAGRANT. The OP twice butchers the spelling on that. Brutally!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And give them the same signal.

My local interpreter heard a rumor that IAABO might make the two different intentional signals "approved" for next year.

[amusedofficial]

I was confused by the confusion. I'm better now.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.