NHSF "intentional" vs NCAA "flagarent" terminology
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

And give them the same signal. :D

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

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!

IAABO, Not The NFHS ...
 

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

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6001/5...942a16cb_m.jpg

Huh?
 

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