標題: " because a player's intent was never the point to the rule." [打印本頁] 作者: ctfhpibw 時間: 2015-10-14 04:21 標題: " because a player's intent was never the point to the rule."
Sporting News Mike DeCourcy on ending the hard foul on breakaways in Butler Basketball Forum
To break it down even more, he's basically saying, there should be no such thing as a flagrant 1 in breakaway situations. It's either a personal foul or a flagrant 2 foul and the flagrant 2 foul should be called enough that coaches and players have to think twice about aggressively fouling a shooter on a breakaway.I think the trouble with this is that flagrant 1 fouls on breakaways include lots of stuff that guys shouldn't be getting tossed over, including Nike Heaven pretty much anything that looks intentional but is otherwise benign. You'd still have to make a designation fr that kind of thing.pressure9pa wrote:pappyball wrote:but61ler wrote:I would like to see whenever a player is fouled (when it is not a flagrant foul) that the coach can pick his own player to shoot the free throw when his player can not shoot because he is injured.I'm ok with this but it would get problematic unless you could clearly define what injured means.I think this part is pretty Nike Air Huarache easy. If he's "injured", he can't return the rest of the half.So you are saying that if there are 30 seconds left in the game, and they foul a 72% foul shooter, he can pretend to be injured and then the 96% free throw shooter gets to take the shots? His penalty is that he sits out for 30 seconds? Is that your "pretty easy" plan?pappyball wrote:Staxawax wrote:pharmtard09 wrote:Grabbing someone's jersey at halfcourt to prevent a breakaway is a flagrant foul. There are 2 types of Flagrant fouls. The first is a Flagrant Personal Foul also known as Intentional Foul, Flagrant, or Flagrant 1. Next is a Flagrant Technical Foul or more commonly know as a Flagrant 2. This is the one that is an auto eject. So going back to my point, what some are advocating is that any Flagrant or Intentional foul (its one in the same) would result in an auto eject. Mont Blanc Pens Australia I personally think the current system is fine especially since the refs can look at the replay to see if there was malicious intent.pharmtard09 wrote:pappyball wrote:Staxawax wrote:pharmtard09 wrote:Grabbing someone's jersey at halfcourt to prevent a breakaway is a flagrant foul. There are 2 types of Flagrant fouls. The first is a Flagrant Personal Foul also known as Intentional Foul, Flagrant, or Flagrant 1. Next is a Flagrant Technical Foul or more commonly know as a Flagrant 2. This is the one that is an auto eject. So going back to my point, what some are advocating is that any Flagrant or Intentional foul (its one in the same) would result in an auto eject. I personally think the current system is fine especially since the refs can look at the replay to see if there was malicious intent.Its more like, "I can't take Vicodin I'm allergic, I need Norcos!" Our job sucks.pharmtard09 wrote:pappyball Nike Huarache Australia wrote:Staxawax wrote:pharmtard09 wrote:Grabbing someone's jersey at halfcourt to prevent a breakaway is a flagrant foul. There are 2 types of Flagrant fouls. The first is a Flagrant Personal Foul also known as Intentional Foul, Flagrant, or Flagrant 1. Next is a Flagrant Technical Foul or more commonly know as a Flagrant 2. This is the one that is an auto eject. So going back to my point, what some are advocating is that any Flagrant or Intentional foul (its one in the same) would result in an auto eject. I personally think the current system is fine especially since the refs can look at the replay to see if there was malicious intent.Yep. My bad. The Cheap New Balance 574 Australia rule was changed last year. But, according to the new "Flagrant 1" rule, simply grabbing a jersey would not be a 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."
