![]() |
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;? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
All that is needed is to change intentional to something else like major. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
|
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 ...
Quote:
Quote:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6001/5...942a16cb_m.jpg |
Huh?
I was confused by the confusion. I'm better now.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16am. |