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. Pack85EE 12/01/2011 at 1:36 PM #

    The announcers did say that it was a flagrant foul of what used to be called an intentional foul. And by the definition in the article, that’s what it was, an intentional foul. But it was light contact and could have gone either way. Wood went for the ball with his right hand but let his left come around and hit the guys arm on the other side. I think it was a bad call. I have seen far worse, hacking a guy going up for a lay up for example, not be called. But missed freethrows, CJ’s missed Jam due to inflated style technique and end game turnovers cost us this game. They need to keep learning.

  2. Thinkpack17 12/01/2011 at 1:42 PM #

    Everyone keeps referring to CJW’s missed jam, I was at the game and the crowd was going crazy so I couldn’t quite tell what happened. It looked to us like he was called for a carry before the jam…was that the case? I haven’t watched the replay yet.

  3. PoppaJohn 12/01/2011 at 2:20 PM #

    I have insomnia. Reading those rules will help, thanks.

  4. Rick 12/01/2011 at 2:27 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.”

    While that may be, it is not stated that way in the 184 pages of the NCAA rule book. If that is the rule then it should be stated as the rule.

    I mean I could be missing something here but it seems to me the rules should be the rules.

  5. Rick 12/01/2011 at 2:28 PM #

    ncsu2005,
    That is interesting that they said they changed that. It is not in their rule book, at least not so I could find it.

  6. TruthBKnown Returns 12/01/2011 at 2:34 PM #

    The player was going in for a sure layup. Woods hit/grabbed with his right arm, and reached around/grabbed the other arm. It wasn’t much of a grab, but it was clearly intended to prevent that sure basket, with no intention of making a play on the ball.

    I thought it was the right call. I thought two of Scott’s other fouls were not fouls, though.

  7. Rick 12/01/2011 at 2:56 PM #

    This article was not meant to ask if the call was good but to understand why it was called what it was called.

    People’s opinions on the call are irrelevant (mine included) and the only thing that should matter is the rule on which the call was based.

  8. Khan 12/01/2011 at 3:19 PM #

    I’ve never read the rulebook before, but it seems the NCAA has an excessive and flagrant affinity for adjectives.

    Calls aside, we absolutely need to learn to release the B button at a more optimal moment. Because all the calls in the world won’t matter if we don’t find a way for someone other than Wood to hit a few jump shots.

  9. tuckerdorm1983 12/01/2011 at 3:28 PM #

    interpretation is all that really matters. It looks like you wrap up a player headed to the basket from behind and that will be a flagrant foul. You reach around the shoulder and that ends it. If you get the at the ball somehow, then maybe a different outcome. However, a half-hearted swipe a few feet from the ball is not enough. I hope they call this consistently.

  10. pack76 12/01/2011 at 3:38 PM #

    It really doesn’t matter what our opinions are. It’s done! We played well and hard and I’m excited about this team. We’re going to improve and upset some teams.

  11. tann84 12/01/2011 at 3:54 PM #

    Agreed Pack76, very young season but to look at other reasons for the loss than the officiating, Richard Howel and CJW you got to put those dunks down ! I’m not mad at the free throw shooting at the end we were 14/14, we not that good of a free throw shooting team so the law of averages were bound to take place sooner or later.

  12. Lumbeeindian17 12/01/2011 at 4:27 PM #

    Still very disappointed in the refs giving that game to them…. they had been letting them play all night until that last call….. that’s just disappointing

  13. MrPlywood 12/01/2011 at 5:18 PM #

    While I’m not surprised it was called an intentional, how many times do we see an endgame situation where the trailing team fouls and it’s just called a regular foul. Everyone in the building knows the D is going to foul, and more often then not, the defensive guy uses two hands and wraps up the opponent to make sure the foul is called. Granted, it’s typically not done on a fast-break, but there’s usually a very weak attempt at playing the ball. Yet that very intentional foul is not called intentional.

    And agreed that Wood got hosed on at least two other clean blocks.

  14. PackFamily 12/01/2011 at 5:33 PM #

    If “intentional” fouls are no longer allowed, then how do all teams – including ours – get away with the “intentional fouling” used as a strategy when the game is near an end and they are down? Every one of those fouls are intentional.

  15. TruthBKnown Returns 12/01/2011 at 5:38 PM #

    Intentional fouls really have nothing to do with a foul being intentional. Of course those end-of-game fouls are intentional. But at least you’re reaching in so as to give an appearance that you’re going for the ball.

    I think intentional fouls are when you have no intention whatsoever of making a play on the ball. Your intention is to make sure a shot is not taken, by any means necessary.

    The intentional foul against Wood was the right call, because it was a breakaway layup that he was stopping. And he was in no way going for the ball. He hit the guy on the arm, and his intent was to get a foul in before he could take the sure shot. He did it without actually making a play on the ball, itself, so that is why it was intentional.

  16. eas 12/01/2011 at 6:20 PM #

    He used both hands in the wrap around effect. I hate it for us but it is what it is. As soon as he wraps around him to foul on a break away you darn well know the ref will call it. It sucks that it was a “gentle” foul but it doesn’t matter.

    On a separate issue, Wood should NOT continue to get these types of calls. He had several last year that looked like an exact replica of that call. I am not sure what he is/was thinking. I don’t fault the ref on that call but that sucked on almost every other call last night.

  17. Wolfy__79 12/01/2011 at 8:26 PM #

    the foul was not flagrant in any way. the commentators agree with the majority.. the refs are the only ones who don’t.

    coach gottfried is right, it didn’t lose the game for us. we didn’t get the breaks at the end of the game. what i saw through out the game was a very young team that still has much to learn. i’m really impressed with the tenacity that we now play with. the way we let the game slip away from us last night and also against a few other opponents this year will serve these young men well in the future.. hopefully this season.

    without the three pointers, indiana would have been a dead duck to me.. they hit the shots but i wasn’t all to impressed with anything else they were doing.. i credit our young team for that. indiana, i think, took advantage of us being that we are not fully on the same page with our offense yet. calvin looks a little lost out there right now but shows glimmers of hope. i think that we’ve got a good season ahead of us.. hopefully ending in some good post season experience for us.

  18. Wolfy__79 12/01/2011 at 8:27 PM #

    ….scott wood is also terrible for cheap fouls.. this one was almost neccessary but he does pick up some cheap ones…

  19. mak4dpak 12/01/2011 at 8:42 PM #

    I am not clear about the foul called on Scott Wood, but if Howell, had made his wide open shot under the basket, along with the free throws, and they say he is 84% at the FT line??????? And CJ Williams uncalled for dunk attempt, then we would all be celebrating a victory. The guys are learning, but have to play smarter in the end of game situations when it is close. But nevertheless a great effort, and proud of what I see taking place on the court.

  20. wolfie91 12/01/2011 at 11:36 PM #

    Meh, wrapping your arms around a guy on a breakaway layup is, I would dare say, always called an intentional (now flagrant 1) foul. If Scott had swiped with one arm, maybe he would have been called for a personal foul and nothing more. But the other arm coming around did it. We can bring out the rulebook and analyze it, but I don’t think you can argue that the “bear hug” is consistently called the way it was called last night.

    I think it is a good idea to rename them “flagrant 1” instead “intentional” because everyone knows since 1983 those end games fouls are intentional. And if you think about it, aren’t a decent number of fouls under the basket most likely intentional? Make the player earn his two points at the line, right?

    The foul didn’t help, but it isn’t why we lost the game. It was just one miscue amongst several.

  21. bigwolfpacker 12/02/2011 at 1:32 AM #

    Of course it was intentional. Anyone can see that. The problem is that he went for the ball while intentionally fouling. This is the same foul that occurs several times at the end of any close game. And there was only 2:55 left in the game at this point so whats the difference? Plus there was a much more flagrant foul on a breakaway in the first half against Indiana that wasnt called as one.

  22. Prof_Turby 12/02/2011 at 7:09 AM #

    The ref made a controversial call…
    For those of you that say it did not affect the outcome of the game…
    Bull$h!t…
    He new he screwed up…
    Why do you think he came over to State’s side on the next possession and let Gott chew on him for a while…
    Rules are set up for interpretation…
    It was his interpenetration that it was an intentional foul…
    It was but Woods was going for the ball…
    In those cases it most always is never called intentional…
    He screwed up…
    He knew it, the coaches knew it, everybody in the house knew it, the commentators knew it…
    He screwed up so much last year in the Big East tournament that his crew removed themselves from the tournament…
    I am a hardheaded SOB…
    If I was a coach I would refuse to play any games that imbecile ever calls…
    The Bid East fired him…
    The ACC hired him…
    Go figure…
    http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/news/story?id=6201265&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_6201265

  23. Wulfpack 12/02/2011 at 7:34 AM #

    Going for the ball and wrapping a player up on a breakaway are two different plays. Wood tried to make both of these plays on the same play. He went for the ball, then wrapped the player up. I think you have to make that call as an official in today’s game. Disappointing that Wood continues to make these mistakes. He should be one of our more heady players. I love his shooting but there are other parts of his game that leave a lot to be desired.

  24. TruthBKnown Returns 12/02/2011 at 8:30 AM #

    Woods was not going for the ball. It was intentional. If the shoe was on the other foot, every one of us would be screaming for the intentional foul.

    My complaint is with two of Wood’s OTHER fouls that appeared to be clean blocks, and the announcers concurred.

  25. coach13 12/02/2011 at 9:45 AM #

    I still say a good or even decent ref doen NOT make that call. It IS subjective and you as a ref (and I have reffed) do NOT want to be part of the story at the end if you can help it. You almost have to be looking to insert yourself to make that call. Put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Had he just called a foul, then you may have gotten a “he might could have called an intentional there” at most, and it goes away.

    It was a poor call, I don’t care what anyone says, and I don’t understand how we have absolutely no sway on our own court as many other teams, not just the blues, seem to have. Justifiable or not you don’t make that call particularly at that moment in the game, unless you are at the RBC of course, and its against the home team.

    And for the arguement Wood has done that before, doesn’t hold water. That ref did not have time to process that “oh, it’s Wood, he has that tendancy, I’m gonna get him this time”. He was looking to insert himself into the end of that game, and he did.

    Refs who look to make an impression in a game, don’t need to be there. I don’t like calls like this, refs who call charges with emphatic glee, or any behavior that stands out. Just keep quiet, stay behind the scenes and don’t look to make out of the ordinary calls unless you are 100% absolute sure.

1 2 3

Leave a Reply