Quote:
Originally Posted by APG
A player's potential playing status would have no affect on me in regards to calling a flagrant T or not on this play. In fact, doing something so outside the bounds of what is sporting in the game, like on this play, means that IMO, the player doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. I'm not worried, in particular, about the "fairness" afforded to the shoe thrower. And I'm not sure how things work in your state, but here, the state will suspend for 2 T's as well as a flagrant.
And to me, if you're going to say goaltending if the ball is on the way down, I'm doing it on the way up on this play.
|
I don't really care about a players potential status for other games either. I just don't think this particular situation warrants a flagrant foul. TBH, I will have to check to see if they are suspended for 2 Ts. They are for sure for flagrant. Either way you do it 1 T or 1 Flagrant, this doesn't make it fair for the offended team. That's why I would prefer to charge 2 Ts or GT plus shots to give them a fair shot at getting the points they attempted.
I agree with you and I think goal tending on the way up or down in this situation plus a T would be the most appropriate and defensible ruling on this particular play.