Fastbreak Foul (Video)

APG

Upgrading nor not? INT/FF1 or Flagrant/FF2?

tjones1

Appears to be a Fed game... I'm going with INT.

Looks like both L and C had it.

JRutledge

Intentional or Flagrant 1 all the way at the very least. Game situation could dictate if I feel it is a FF2 or Flagrant foul or not.

Peace

APG

I'm going flagrant foul/FF2 on this.

JRutledge

APG wrote
I'm going flagrant foul/FF2 on this.

You beat me to it. I saw before the edit. 😀

Peace

MD Longhorn

FF2 - go away now, kid.

Rich

Flagrant / FF2.

rockyroad

Flagrant...FF2 in NCAA. Bye-bye...

Initial contact was a hit to the shooters face/head. No way we can just go INT on that kind of play.

j51969

Eject, Eject, Eject. This is a no brainer for me. You leave this kid in and you are asking for retaliation. Even if the video makes it look worse than it was the violent nature of his action, and intent would do it for me. Does anyone know what if they went with intentional or upgraded to flagrant?

Camron Rust

No less than Int/FF1...possibly more depending on factors leading up to that.

HawkeyeCubP

Camron Rust wrote
No less than Int/FF1...possibly more depending on factors leading up to that.

I'm in this camp. Can't clearly see that arm coming down on the head or neck. If I could, I'd probably go with FLAG/FF2.

HokiePaul

tjones1 wrote
Appears to be a Fed game... I'm going with INT.

Looks like both L and C had it.

Agree. Can't speak to the college FF1/2, but in a Fed game, I don't see enough to warrent a flagrant/ejection unless there was something prior that would suggest an intent. It looks like a big guy hustling back and attempting to play the ball. Easy Intentional though given the amount of contact.

JRutledge

j51969 wrote
Eject, Eject, Eject. This is a no brainer for me. You leave this kid in and you are asking for retaliation. Even if the video makes it look worse than it was the violent nature of his action, and intent would do it for me. Does anyone know what if they went with intentional or upgraded to flagrant?

You could have retaliation anyway. That should not be just our decision making process. And that is why I would like to know what kind of game we have had up until that point. It might be a flagrant, but I am not seeing anything alone that suggest the player was not trying to play the ball or make a basketball play. It was not great, but sometimes players make bad plays, does not mean it is savage in nature that requires an ejection. Then again I would not be mad at someone for an ejection, it just would not be my first choice based only on what I witnessed here.

Peace

j51969

🙂

JRutledge wrote
You could have retaliation anyway. That should not be just our decision making process. And that is why I would like to know what kind of game we have had up until that point. It might be a flagrant, but I am not seeing anything alone that suggest the player was not trying to play the ball or make a basketball play. It was not great, but sometimes players make bad plays, does not mean it is savage in nature that requires an ejection. Then again I would not be mad at someone for an ejection, it just would not be my first choice based only on what I witnessed here.

Peace

A fair assessment. I would not make the decison on that. My brain isn't that sharpe😉. If something like that does happen after a foul of that sort you can sometimes put a place holder on a play like that.

BillyMac

In my high school game, intentional (hard) foul.

It's convenient that both the lead, and the center, had to same call. I would hate to think what would happen if they had different calls, with one being the old "heave ho" unofficial signal. As you are all aware, in the Land That Time Forgot, also known as Connecticut, almost all of our games are two person games, so whose call is this?

MD Longhorn

BillyMac wrote
In my high school game, intentional (hard) foul.

It's convenient that both the lead, and the center, had to same call. I would hate to think what would happen if they had different calls, with one being the old "heave ho" unofficial signal. As you are all aware, in the Land That Time Forgot, also known as Connecticut, almost all of our games are two person games, so whose call is this?

Good question ... but in my opinion if both call this, and one gives the ejection signal, you eject - if EITHER official sees enough to make that call, go with it.

BillyMac

MD Longhorn wrote
Good question ... but in my opinion if both call this, and one gives the ejection signal, you eject - if EITHER official sees enough to make that call, go with it.

Seems fine, but let's say the center goes with an ordinary in the act of shooting foul, and give a holding preliminary signal, while the lead gives the intentional (hard) foul preliminary signal?

Let's just say that I'm not a big fan of preliminary signals on double whistles, while still realizing that sometimes one official doesn't hear the other's whistle, doesn't realize it's a double whistle, and gives a strong "sell it" preliminary signal. I hate it when that happens. Luckily, the few times that I've been involved in such a situation, my partner, and I, have both had the same signal, there but for the grace of God ...

maroonx

Does #34 dark jersey have tights on?

Toren

I'd like to see the lead close into the players once the illegal hit is delivered. Just being more of a presence on the play.

I'm seeing flagrant/flagrant 2.

just another ref

MD Longhorn wrote
Good question ... but in my opinion if both call this, and one gives the ejection signal, you eject - if EITHER official sees enough to make that call, go with it.

Why? One is no more likely to be correct than the other.