The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 07, 2012, 06:20pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 136
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;?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 07, 2012, 06:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 07, 2012, 08:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 09:41am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 11:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 136
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 12:07pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 12:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 12:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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."
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 12:42pm
Back from the DL
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Confidence is a vehicle, not a destination.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 01:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SE Ohio
Posts: 933
How about we just split the intentional foul to intentional and excessive.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 01:05pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
How about we just split the intentional foul to intentional and excessive.
And give them the same signal.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 01:32pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 27,895
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 03:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
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!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 08:21pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 15,957
IAABO, Not The NFHS ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB View Post
How about we just split the intentional foul to intentional and excessive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.

__________________
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Feb 08, 2012, 08:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 279
Huh?

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

Last edited by amusedofficial; Wed Feb 08, 2012 at 08:49pm. Reason: got unconfused
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is "the patient whistle" and "possession consequence" ruining the game? fiasco Basketball 46 Fri Dec 02, 2011 08:43am
OT: Calling the official a "hater" and "loser" bainsey Basketball 35 Wed Sep 14, 2011 03:53pm
ABC's "Nightline" examines "worst calls ever" tonight pizanno Basketball 27 Fri Jul 04, 2008 06:08am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1