flagrant vrs. technical

[bassfreak76]

What is the difference between a flagrant and technical foul?

[BktBallRef]

A flagrant can be a technical or personal foul and always results in an ejection.

[Nevadaref]

Tony's response if for high school basketball. It occurred to me that you might be watching the NBA. If you are talking about NBA rules, they seem to use the term flagrant the way HS uses intentional.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Tony's response if for high school basketball. It occurred to me that you might be watching the NBA. If you are talking about NBA rules, they seem to use the term flagrant the way HS uses intentional.

IIRC, the NBA has two levels of flagrant fouls: Flagrant 1 and Flagrant 2. One is essentially the same as an NFHS Intentiona; the other, an NFHS Flagrant.

[Damian]

4-19 art. 4. Personal or technical of a violent or savage nature... or a technical noncontact file which displays unacceptable conduct. Also according to the quiz, coming in after being disqualified is a flagrent technical foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Damian
4-19 art. 4. Personal or technical of a violent or savage nature... or a technical noncontact file which displays unacceptable conduct. Also according to the quiz, coming in after being disqualified is a flagrent technical foul.

coming in after being disqualified = unacceptable conduct

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Damian
4-19 art. 4. Personal or technical of a violent or savage nature... or a technical noncontact file which displays unacceptable conduct. Also according to the quiz, coming in after being disqualified is a flagrent technical foul.

I'm a little unclear on what the point of the test question was. According to the exam, if a previously disqualified player returns to the game, it's a flagrant technical. Which is like a regular technical except that the offender is disqualified. So...their point is that the already disqualified player is now really, really disqualified? And I double dog dare you to try it again?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

I'm a little unclear on what the point of the test question was. According to the exam, if a previously disqualified player returns to the game, it's a flagrant technical. Which is like a regular technical except that the offender is disqualified. So...their point is that the already disqualified player is now really, really disqualified? And I double dog dare you to try it again?

Technical fouls are composed of the regular variety,or they may be called intentional or flagrant.Regular and intentional technical fouls don't carry the penalty of mandatory ejection with them.Flagrant T's do.A lot of States track all flagrant fouls-personal or technical-and then mandate automatic suspensions for them.I think that this is the reason for distinguishing the type of technical to be issued in this specific case.It's for an extreme unsportsmanlike act.

[Nevadaref]

The importance is that Nevada, like many other states, makes the kid sit out the next game if he receives an ejection, (ie flagrant T, or two Ts) as opposed to just being disqualified (fouling out).
Oh, good job, JR, you beat me to it.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
The importance is that Nevada, like many other states, makes the kid sit out the next game if he receives an ejection, (ie flagrant T, or two Ts) as opposed to just being disqualified (fouling out).
Oh, good job, JR, you beat me to it.

Just remember, folks, in NF rules there is no such thing as an ejection:

"A disqualified player is one who is barred from further participation in the game because of having committed his/her fifth foul (personal and technical), two technical fouls or a flagrant foul." (4-14-1)


The different penalties for different types of disqualifications do often hold true, though.