Flagrant foul

[gymrat62]

so what was the penalty for the flagrant foul if there was no ejection.

 

I am pretty sure if a flagrant foul is called, by the book, it should be reported to scorer's table as a "flagrant technical foul" followed by disqualification. If the player charged with flagrant foul continued to participate, somebody screwed up.

OK midtnblu, that brings some clarity to what happened and is the best explanation I have heard from anyone. After the foul was called, everyone went to half court while the foul shots were attempted. However, everyone I have talked to doesn't mention that the official said he was disqualified. Now the coach should know that rule, but this very well could be the first time he has had a player called for a flagrant foul(I still don't think it was a flagrant foul). It seems like the official should have to tell the coach and player that he is disqualified. The player continued to play and was fouled at which point the official says "What are you doing? You are disqualified." At which point, he sat down. I don't think he signalled a tech at this point. Another player shot his free throws. But no technical free throws were shot.

 

If the 2 games supension is the result of the 2nd technical, why no free throws for the technical. From what you say, it sounds like this oficial definitely needs to go back to ref school and calling rec games.

[riverdaleman]

so what was the penalty for the flagrant foul if there was no ejection.

 

I am pretty sure if a flagrant foul is called, by the book, it should be reported to scorer's table as a "flagrant technical foul" followed by disqualification. If the player charged with flagrant foul continued to participate, somebody screwed up.

what would constitute a flagrant foul....we had an intentional foul called not flagrant...so what are the differences

[rulesman09]

what would constitute a flagrant foul....we had an intentional foul called not flagrant...so what are the differences

 

NFHS 4-19, 3 and 4(I'll paraphrase):

 

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball, or not playing the ball or a player specifically designed to keep the clock from starting, is intentional. They may or may not be premeditated, and aren't based solely on the severity of the act.

 

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

 

Hope that clears it up a little.

[icyhot989]

I believe this is the way it goes down....

 

The suspension (handed down and enforced by TSSAA, not by the officials) is the result of any ejection. The ejection is a result of the flagrant foul.

 

...so when the official judged the foul to be flagrant, that resulted in the automatic ejection. The ejection is reported to the TSSAA and they enforce the suspension.

 

And gymrat...you didn't lose a player because of one official's opinion, you lost a player due to his own actions.

I was present at the game and by no means was it a flagrant. The guy was slapping him in the face as he went for the rebound and as he turn to outlet the ball the guy was still all over him. The guys arms were tangled up with his and as the guy is 6' 6" to 6' 8" his elbow made contact with him. It looked alot worse than what it was. So yes they did lose a player for one officials opinion. The ref had been singling him out the whole game made obvious by his 2 fouls in less than 3 mins as one of them was him literally standing there. There was no fight in the game no swings were taken and the ref made a horrible call. There was no ill will towards the player, he was simply trying to outlet the ball...I believe this team will be alot better after this 3 game losing streak and see them making a deep run in the play-offs.

[dgeeman]

I would say in this day and age that it might be time to bring in the video replay but in our case a chance for coaches to appeal with the use of Video replay. Though it may be too late for the game being played it would seem logical to allow coaches to appeal such calls with the use of video. Everyone video tapes these days...if the video without a doubt shows the reversal of the call or calls...let the student/athlete play.

 

gman

[riverdaleman]

I would say in this day and age that it might be time to bring in the video replay but in our case a chance for coaches to appeal with the use of Video replay. Though it may be too late for the game being played it would seem logical to allow coaches to appeal such calls with the use of video. Everyone video tapes these days...if the video without a doubt shows the reversal of the call or calls...let the student/athlete play.

 

gman

im not 100% sure but i think there is an appeal process that i know of a few coaches and or players have won I do not know if it owuld apply in this case but i do know that it can and has been done

[riverdaleman]

NFHS 4-19, 3 and 4(I'll paraphrase):

 

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball, or not playing the ball or a player specifically designed to keep the clock from starting, is intentional. They may or may not be premeditated, and aren't based solely on the severity of the act.

 

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

 

Hope that clears it up a little.

so according to this if you get called for a flagrant foul in the officials judgement it was a striking act

[rulesman09]

so according to this if you get called for a flagrant foul in the officials judgement it was a striking act

 

If it was a striking act, then yes, it would be correctly judged as a flagrant foul. But the book also says, "involves, but isn't limited to." That's where each official's judgment of all the factors comes into play.