I recently downvoted and flagged an answer as "Very Low Quality". The answer was to a two year old question that already had three correct answers (including one accepted), and the existing answers thoroughly explained the subject at hand. The bad answer provides the wrong conclusion and justifies it with an explanation that would apply to a different though similar question. This answer was also the first answer that the user (who had 6 rep) has provided on SO.
The "Very Low Quality" flag was rejected with the note that "flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer". I try not to flag answers simply for being wrong; this answer seemed to me to go above and beyond merely being dead wrong, but didn't stray in to the territory of incomprehensibility that would qualify it for a "Not an answer" flag, nor was it completely off-topic, nor did I see a way to improve it without changing the essential meaning of the answer (which seems inappropriate, and would pretty much make it a duplicate answer). It seemed to me that the answer satisfied Jeff's test of "Not just bad but embarrassingly bad."
So, if I was overreacting and that answer wasn't actually bad enough to justify the flag, then what would be bad enough while still not qualifying for the "Not an answer" flag? From the discussion on I've seen here about the VLQ flag, it seems that many are opposed to its existence, but that its applicability to questions has been defended. I haven't seen much discussion specific to flagging answers. Can anyone provide specific guidelines for what makes an answer eligible for the VLQ flag, or should I just avoid it altogether?