Flagrant Foul, who can possibly know?

ACC Editor's Picks General NCS Basketball55

I wanted to understand what a flagrant foul was after the call against Scott Wood last night so I pulled up a copy of the NCAA rules. Which can be found at http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BR11.pdf

It is 184 pages long. 184 pages. Maybe I am hopelessly naive but how is it possible that a game 7 year old children can play in the driveway can fill 184 pages. This reminds me of how the government makes everything more complicated than it has to be. But being a glutton for punishment I decided to look into it a little more and see what all of these rules look like. I paged down to rule 7 entitled “out of bounds”. Should be simple right? No, it is five pages with 6 sections and 32 articles. This is for the ball going out of bounds. 5 pages. But then I realized I was getting side tracked as all I wanted was a definition of a flagrant foul.

So I did a search on “flagrant” as I did not want to read through 182 pages. There are 151 references to the word “flagrant” in the NCAA rule book. Holy cow, all I wanted was to understand what a flagrant foul is. But now I am feeling stubborn and am determined to figure this out. Here is what I think I found for a definition

Flagrant personal foul, live ball. A flagrant personal foul shall be
a personal foul that involves severe contact with an opponent or
involves contact that is extreme in nature while the ball is live.

That seems rather vague especially given the discussions the talking heads have about “wrapping a player up” and the type A and B technical fouls. There must be some more information in that 152 pages that will clarify this issue. I then came across a definition of a flagrant technical foul

Flagrant technical foul. A flagrant technical foul can be either contact
or non-contact.
1. A flagrant contact technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and
the contact is severe (serious, deliberate) or extreme (applied to
the greatest degree).
a. An exception may be a foul committed by an airborne
shooter.
2. A flagrant non-contact technical foul is an infraction that involves
extreme, sometimes persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct and
occurs during either a live or dead ball.

So I feel like I am getting somewhere. I now have some definitions but to be thorough I decide to look at all 151 references to “flagrant”. As I am scanning (as I have a job it is impossible to read the whole 181 pages) I come across what appears to be another definition

Art. 15. A player shall not flagrantly or excessively contact an opponent
while the ball is live (includes fighting)

This is under the definition of a foul. So flagrant contact is a foul but not necessarily a flagrant foul. Now I am starting to get confused. So if flagrant contact is a foul when is flagrant contact a flagrant foul? I get down to the section on technical fouls so I feel I should get some clarity now. One of the articles on the definition of technical foul says

Art. 16. A player flagrantly or excessively contacting an opponent while
the ball is dead.

So it appears if the ball is dead then the same contact that was a regular foul is now a technical foul. That is still pretty vague so I keep reading the technical foul section and I find section 5 (Class A technical foul) and section 6 (Class B technical foul). This must be what the announcers were referring to last night. Under section 5 on page 135 (class A) the rule states:

Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including,
but not limited to, the following:
a. Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in
such a manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profanity or vulgarity; taunting, baiting or ridiculing another
player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene
gestures toward another player or bench personnel.
c. Inciting undesirable crowd reaction.
d. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary,
unacceptable and excessive manner.
e. Flagrantly (severe or extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball
is dead.
f. A flagrant non-contact infraction that involves extreme, sometimes
persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct when the ball is dead or live.
g. Participating after having been disqualified (non-contact flagrant
technical).
h. Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may
break out or has broken out (flagrant non-contact infraction).
i. Fighting as in Rule 4-26

So according to the written rules it is impossible for anyone to get a class A technical if the ball is live and there is contact. The penalty for class A is 2 FTs and the ball. It does say it is not limited to those rules but anything else is completely subjective. So I looked at the rules for a class B and it says:

Section 6. (Men) CLASS B TECHNICAL INFRACTIONS
Art. 1. A technical foul shall be assessed to a player or a substitute for the
following infractions:
a. Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing
hand(s) near his eyes.
b. Climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.
c. Knowingly attempting a free throw to which he is not entitled.
d. Possessing or using tobacco.138 Rule 10 / foulsand penalties
e. A team member dunking or attempting to dunk a dead ball before or
during the game, or during any intermission.
f. Grasping either basket in an excessive, emphatic manner during the
officials’ jurisdiction when the player is not, in the judgment of an
official, trying to prevent an obvious injury to self or others.
g. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing either the
backboard or ring to vibrate while the ball is in flight during a try, or
while the ball is touching the backboard, is on the basket ring, in the
basket net or in the cylinder.
h. Placing a hand(s) on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.
i. Touching a ball in flight (goaltending) during a free throw.
j. Reaching through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touching or
dislodging the ball while it is in possession of the thrower or being
passed to a teammate outside the boundary line as in Rule 7-5.6.b.
k. Deceptively leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason and
returning at a more advantageous position.
l. Purposely delaying his return to the playing court after being legally
out of bounds.
m. After a team warning has been issued, attempting to gain an advantage
by interfering with the ball after a goal or failing to immediately pass
the ball to the nearest official after the whistle had been blown.
n. A team member entering the playing court without reporting to the
official scorers or a substitute entering the playing court without
being beckoned by an official (unless during an intermission).
o. Participating after changing his uniform number without reporting
the change to the official scorer and a game official.
p. Opponents of the thrower-in shall not repeatedly have any part of
their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line
before the ball has crossed that boundary line. (See Rule 9-5.3.

I see nothing in here that pertains to the call last night so I am again in search of the definition. I have finally found the section for “Intentional Personal Fouling”. Now I am getting somewhere, it reads:

Section 4. Intentional Personal Fouling
Guidelines for calling the intentional personal foul are:
a. Any personal foul that is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball
or a player is an intentional personal foul.
b. Running into the back of a player who has the ball, wrapping the arm(s)
around a player and grabbing a player around the torso or legs are
intentional personal fouls.
c. Grabbing a player’s arm or body while initially attempting to gain
control by playing the ball directly is an intentional personal foul.
d. Grabbing, holding or pushing a player away from the ball is an
intentional personal foul.
e. Undue roughness used to stop the game clock is an intentional personal
foul and, if severe, should be called a flagrant personal foul.
f. It is an intentional personal foul when, while playing the ball, a player
causes excessive contact with an opponent.
The intentional personal foul must be called within the spirit and
intent of the intentional-foul rule

Now I have a definition but again it seems pretty vague and can be used for about half of the fouls called during a game. I am about to give up as it seems that is the best definition I am going to get but then I happen to notice on page 152 the appendix IV labeled “foul/penalty chart”. I feel a little excitement as it seems I am about to find the ever elusive definition. Here I see both intentional and flagrant personal fouls listed. This must be the two types of fouls the announcers drone on about.

Intentional Personal says

An act that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player. Not based on severity, but is excessive.

Flagrant Personal says

Severe or extreme contact with an opponent during live ball only

The penalty for the intentional is 2FTs and the ball. The flagrant adds an ejection for the offending player. But then I see a Flagrant Tecchnical Foul It is defined as

Extreme unsporting conduct (noncontact) during a live ball or severe/extreme contact with an opponent during a dead ball

It has the same penalty as the Flagrant foul.

I have no idea if anyone is brave enough to read all of this. Frankly I did not intend it to be this long as I was just trying to define what a flagrant foul is. And what did I learn?

1) The rules are so long and convoluted it is impossible to determine exactly what rule should have applied to the Wood foul last night. The closes I can get to it is the intentional foul call but that says it has to be excessive and that foul was hardly excessive.
2) The NCAA has gotten out of hand with the rules. How can anyone be expected to know all 181 pages of these rules? They are vague and hard to understand.
3) The announcers do not know what they are talking about. There is no class A and B flagrant foul.
4) I cannot type. I mistyped the word l about 25 times in this article including the one in this sentence.

About Rick

1992 and 2002 graduate from NCSU. Born and raised an NCSU fan. I remember the good ol' days and they weren't in the last 20 years.

ACC Editor's Picks General NCS Basketball

55 Responses to Flagrant Foul, who can possibly know?

  1. Sweet jumper 12/01/2011 at 11:38 AM #

    I thought Wood was called for an intentional foul, not a flagrant foul. Correct me if I am wrong. I was at the game, so I did not hear Lenny “I’m still bitter about 1974” Elmore and Mike “I can’t remember 5 mins ago much less 1974” Patrick offer their expert analysis of the play.

  2. Rick 12/01/2011 at 11:47 AM #

    He might have been. The definition for intentional foul is “An act that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player. Not based on severity, but is excessive.”

    I am not sure it met the part about excessive but honestly this article is more about the NCAA and how it is excessive than the foul.

  3. Sw0rdf1sh 12/01/2011 at 11:51 AM #

    If I was a betting man, I would say Earl Walton is a betting man.

  4. ErB 12/01/2011 at 12:01 PM #

    To me the foul looked intentional. His first swipe went for the ball (not-intentional) but on his second attempt it looked pretty clear that he was just going for the foul.

  5. IamGumbyDammit 12/01/2011 at 12:12 PM #

    Even Len “No Love for NC State” Elmore was complaining it was a bad call.

  6. Zak-Attack 12/01/2011 at 12:12 PM #

    As a ref, you never want to change or decide the outcome of a game. That questionable call had a huge bearing on the outcome. Horrible call at the time.

  7. Thinkpack17 12/01/2011 at 12:15 PM #

    Right. Of course it was intentional but a lot of fouls in the game are “intentional”. They are just generally accepted and called as common fouls though.

    1. A point guard gets stripped at the top of the key…reaches in and grabs the guy before he can get into the front court. It’s intentional, but called as common.

    2. A team is down 1 with 10 seconds left and lightly slaps a guy 4/5 times on the chest and shoulders. It’s intentional…but called as common.

    3. A team is up 3 with 4 seconds left. A player is wrapped up before he can get into the shooting motion. It’s intentional, again…called as common.

    Being the last guy back and fouling a guy before he can shoot used to be a smart play. It used to just be called a common foul, ESPECIALLY if you are sure to do it before the guy takes off. I don’t know when that changed. But I think it’s crap.

  8. Rick 12/01/2011 at 12:18 PM #

    The whole point is the NCAA rules are so vague anything can be called a regular foul or an intentional foul.

  9. EasternWakeWolf 12/01/2011 at 12:23 PM #

    They said it was a flagrant foul “1” and the ref’s signal was for a flagrant foul.

  10. tann84 12/01/2011 at 12:33 PM #

    @ErB, I thought the second attempt was the one that was going for the ball. either way its not intentional as long as there is some effort being made to go for the ball and that was clear.

  11. baxter 12/01/2011 at 12:33 PM #

    Pretty sure the refs are told that if a player in anyway places two hands on the opponent in a shooting or dribbling situation its the call they made on Scott. Two shots and the ball.

  12. tann84 12/01/2011 at 12:34 PM #

    I think the worse call is the foul that sent wood to the bench. A clean block, clear as day.

  13. Thinkpack17 12/01/2011 at 12:38 PM #

    “The whole point is the NCAA rules are so vague anything can be called a regular foul or an intentional foul.”

    Oh I get it. And I agree. It’s like you said…why do you need 200 pages to explain a game 7 year olds play. If the 184 pages of rules don’t help just use common sense.

    Taking a guy out of the sky on a dunk, hitting someone in the head, tripping a guy from behind…probably intentional/flagrant. Slapping a guy on the shoulder…not so much.

    “Pretty sure the refs are told that if a player in anyway places two hands on the opponent in a shooting or dribbling situation…”

    If that was the case Richard Howell would average 3 intentionals a game. He is a hand checking machine, 2 hands to the chest is his go to move.

  14. ncsu1987 12/01/2011 at 12:55 PM #

    Rick: great article. Gotta get a copy of that rulebook for my “spare time”, your description is amazing.

  15. gannon 12/01/2011 at 12:57 PM #

    How about a little home cooking? It seems like these borderline calls don’t go our way at home, ever! Both fouls against Wood were borderline (one being a clear foul but not flagrant) and we end up on the bad side of both.

  16. JeremyH 12/01/2011 at 12:58 PM #

    It is still the case that our basketball team needs to learn to use the rules to their benefit, rather than their detriment.

  17. Pack1997 12/01/2011 at 1:04 PM #

    Since I was a kid 20+ years ago the rule has always been if you wrap the player up you get an intentional foul. They have changed the name of intentional foul to a Flagrant 1. Hence the confusion. In that situation, with a one on one you simply cannot appear to grab or wrap up which is what he did. It was clear as day on the replay.

    Furthermore it was not the refs call that cost us the game. We missed free throws and a few wide open layups down the stretch. We play IU 10 times we probably split 5-5.

  18. logarithm 12/01/2011 at 1:10 PM #

    From what I saw, he went with both hands, one across the front of the man, one across the back of the man, trying to get the foul on the ground instead of while he was shooting. It was seen as a very weak bear hug.

    This happens to Wood because he’s almost always the first man back to cover fast breaks and he tries to make the smart foul on the floor before he makes a shooting foul. He just needs discipline to make the foul the right way.

  19. wufpaxno1 12/01/2011 at 1:13 PM #

    I am sure the intent of the call was for an intentional foul irrespective of the hand signal that may have been given by the ref. And Baxter is correct, anytime that a player uses both hands in anyway involving contact with an opposing player the refs are going to call it intentional. I don’t think that Wood meant it intentionally, but his actions, using the second hand, dictated the call.

    Either way, I was proud of the effort and we are headed in the right direction. I was especially thrilled to see Calvin “CJ” Leslie drive the lane and dish off to Howard for an easy layup. The Leslie of last year would not have passed at the opportunity to score for himself. This unselfishness speaks very highly of his development and I can’t wait to see his continued progression. By year’s end we should be a very dangerous team.

  20. packhammer 12/01/2011 at 1:20 PM #

    By whatever standard they used to call the intentional or flagrant foul on Wood, they should have called one on Indiana in the first half. I think it was Brown that had them beat down the court and was going up for a layup and was knocked down hard enough to miss the shot.

    Also agree with tann84 that the worse call was the foul on Wood when he got all ball. That block was clean.

    All that said, we had plenty of missed opportunities. If CJ had made his monster jam we would have gone ahead by 9 and that would have made a difference. How many jumpers did Painter miss last night? Howell misses on the lay up. Missed free throws? Dang boys!

  21. ncsu2005 12/01/2011 at 1:26 PM #

    Actually, according the NCAA’s website, the following rules changes were implemented for this season:

    “Fouls language
    The panel also approved a change in nomenclature on fouls that are deemed more severe than a “common” foul in both men’s and women’s basketball. The terms “Flagrant 1” and “Flagrant 2” will now be used. A Flagrant 1 foul takes the place of an intentional foul and the Flagrant 2 foul replaces the previous flagrant foul.

    An example of a Flagrant 1 foul would be when a player swings an elbow and makes illegal, non-excessive contact with an opponent above the shoulders. The team whose player was struck would receive two free throws and possession of the ball. Previously, this type of foul was called an intentional foul. The committee wanted to move away from the word “intentional,” because a player’s intent was never the point to the rule.

    An example of a Flagrant 2 foul would be when a player swings an elbow excessively and makes contact with an opponent above the shoulders. In this case, the player who threw the elbow would be ejected from the game, and the other team would receive two free throws and the ball.”

    So, as folks have referenced above, it was deemed to be an intentional foul, which is now called a “Flagrant 1.”

    Additionally,

    “• The panel approved a change regarding coaches being able to request a monitor review of flagrant fouls. In the women’s game, a coach can request a review of the monitor to determine whether a Flagrant 1 foul for elbow contact or a Flagrant 2 foul occurred. In the men’s game, the change allows coaches to request a review for a potential Flagrant 2 foul that was not detected. If it is determined that no such foul occurred in a men’s or women’s game, the team requesting the monitor review will be charged a timeout. If no timeouts remain, the team is assessed a technical foul for taking too many timeouts.”

    Not that it would have helped us last night, but it’s interesting to see further incorporation of video review into college basketball.

    I’m not sure why these wouldn’t have been incorporated into the main rule book unless the NCAA simply hasn’t published the updated version…

  22. Wufpacker 12/01/2011 at 1:26 PM #

    I thought Wood went for the ball with his right hand, then tried a desperation swipe with the left coming around the other side, which I also think his intention was to go in the direction of the ball but he was just out of position for it (holy run on sentence, Batman). The problem was that a) he was out of position and trailing the ballhandler and, b) his left handed (second) swipe was a bad move to begin with, but was also almost simultaneous to his right. This caused the appearance of wrapping up to the ref trailing the play, who I believe made the call.

    I don’t think that was Wood’s intention, but without benefit of replay and trailing the play especially, the official is going to make that call every time unless you’re wearing a light blue uniform.

    Besides, we were in the death spin long before that play. When you can’t hit FT’s or easy transition buckets down the stretch, one ill-advised foul isn’t what’s going to sink you.

  23. 61Packer 12/01/2011 at 1:27 PM #

    I am in Rick’s corner about the NCAA.

    The NCAA has become a PC organization that is determined to interpret, as they go, the rules they can’t specifically define on paper.

    The ONLY flagrant foul that should’ve been called in last night’s game was on the final two points Indiana scored. When a team is well ahead in the final seconds, a wide-open reverse dunk is absolutely a taunting, in-your-face act that is classless. That basket should’ve been disallowed and technical shots awarded to State. What Scott Wood did was nothing compared to that as far as I’m concerned.

    If the NCAA can levy a foul on a team that is sincerely cheering a great play or a game-winning play, it is ludicrous to slap a penalty on the cheering team. What exactly defines that penalty, anyway? Three people cheering, 9 cheering, 17 cheering, or 18 cheering? There are simply too many gray areas that lacked gray matter when they were put to paper.

    When the average ACC fan, who is generally well-versed in the rules, doesn’t understand what happened when they had a clear view of the Wood “foul”, the NCAA needs to clarify its rules.

    And Tom Crean needs to tell his players that if the Hoosiers want to again represent their school with the same kind of class Bob Knight’s players did, they need to show a little more of it on the court. I didn’t mind hearing their fans cheer at the end of the game, but I thought that last basket put a damper on what was an otherwise hard-fought and fairly clean game.

  24. MP 12/01/2011 at 1:28 PM #

    As noted in the other post, this ‘technique’ is not uncommon for Scott Wood. And every time I see him do it I think it looks like an intentional foul.

    He doesn’t have the speed or ‘ups’ to chase down, jump with, and hammer someone as part of a block attempt (which is not and never has been an intentional foul). So our choices are to try and have someone else be rotated who can do that, or tell Wood to let the guy go unless he can get a solid one-hand play on the guy.

  25. Thinkpack17 12/01/2011 at 1:32 PM #

    “He doesn’t have the speed or ‘ups’ to chase down, jump with, and hammer someone as part of a block attempt (which is not and never has been an intentional foul).”

    Courtney Fells at Virginia Tech says “For Real!?”

1 2 3

Leave a Reply