What would you do?

Adam

Mregor wrote
This isn't about fighting. It's about an attempted trip. You would seriously consider a flagrant T. I wouldn't. 😉

Until I see a video, I won't commit either way. Tripping a player intentionally is dangerous. I'm most likely going with a T, but flagrant is an option. Would I call it? Probably not. But I'd consider it.

Nevadaref

Mregor wrote
(quoted personal attack deleted) And you are correct, fighting doesn't need contact and if the player who allegedly was allegedly tripped retaliated and took a swing at the defender on the ground, they both would be charged with fighting as his act caused the opponent to retaliate, regardless if he grabbed his foot or not. Again, that's not the what happened. OP wasn't even sure if there was contact. Without contact, I still have nothing regardless of so called intent. I'd talk to coach and let him handle it.

Years ago I gave a flagrant T to a kid based on what I thought was intent. Still regret it as in hindsight, I'm not 100% sure. Usually the only T's I regret are the ones I don't issue.

(reference to personal shot deleted)

Now if you want to be precise, your reply above contains a generality which should be cleaned up. Not just any act which causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting would get classified by rule as fighting itself, but rather only an unsporting act which causes that retaliation. So if an official did not deem the attempted trip to be unsporting or an actual trip involving contact wasn't ruled flagrant on its own (perhaps the official only charged a normal personal foul or an intentional personal foul), then any fighting retaliation would not cause the original fouler to be automatically DQ'd by rule.

[deleted]

Mregor wrote
Years ago I gave a flagrant T to a kid based on what I thought was intent. Still regret it as in hindsight, I'm not 100% sure. Usually the only T's I regret are the ones I don't issue.

New refs please don't do what Mregor and I did. I too ejected a kid (A1) a couple years ago for fighting for taking a swipe at another kid's (B1) hand cuz A1 was being held. I ejected A1 and gave B1 a tech for "instigating" a fight and it was a bitch to explain to the coaches. Still probably the worst decision of my basketball career.

OKREF

Adam wrote
Until I see a video, I won't commit either way. Tripping a player intentionally is dangerous. I'm most likely going with a T, but flagrant is an option. Would I call it? Probably not. But I'd consider it.

If you will tell me how to embed I will try. Or I can send you the link and you can get it.

OKREF

Play is it the 31:50 mark 1:35 left in the second quarter

Rich

Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

OKREF

Rich wrote
Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

Yea, I remember sitting in the locker room at half and talking about that, wished I would have had an intentional instead.

Adam

OKREF wrote
Yea, I remember sitting in the locker room at half and talking about that, wished I would have had an intentional instead.

A cheap lesson to learn.

OKREF

Adam wrote
A cheap lesson to learn.

Other than it counting as one of his two, really the only difference is where the ball is inbounded. I know the Technical is more punitive.

Adam

Nevadaref wrote
Now if you want to be precise, your reply above contains a generality which should be cleaned up. Not just any act which causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting would get classified by rule as fighting itself, but rather only an unsporting act which causes that retaliation. So if an official did not deem the attempted trip to be unsporting or an actual trip involving contact (perhaps the official only charged a personal foul), then any fighting retaliation would not cause the original fouler to be automatically DQ'd by rule.

Interesting.
B1 swipes at A1's foot and misses (official rules this an unsporting technical foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

B1 swipes at A1's foot and makes contact (intentional foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

We only get to toss them both if B1 misses.

Welpe

Rich wrote
Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

Agreed.

Thanks for posting the video, that cleans things up quite a bit.

BryanV21

I have an intentional foul here.

stripes

Rich wrote
Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video.

I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

+1. Seeing the video, it is an easy play.

BillyMac

Rich wrote
Intentional personal. Not even a second thought in my mind seeing the video. I consider the technical incorrect, by rule.

Agree 100%.

BillyMac

OKREF wrote
... the only difference is where the ball is inbounded.

The only difference? Are you sure?

Intentional Personal: Only fouled player (unless injured, or otherwise not eligible to play) allowed to shoot the two free throws. Ball inbounded at spot closest to where foul occurred.

Technical: Any player, including a substitute coming off the bench, can shoot the two free throws, even two different players. Ball inbounded at division line, opposite table.

Nevadaref

BillyMac wrote
The only difference? Are you sure?

Intentional Personal: Only fouled player (unless injured, or otherwise not eligible to play) allowed to shoot the two free throws. Ball inbounded at spot closest to where foul occurred.

Technical: Any player, including a substitute coming off the bench, can shoot the two free throws, even two different players. Ball inbounded at division line, opposite table.

Billy,
I believe that he is referring to how the events unfolded in this specific case. For in this case the player who was fouled actually attempted the awarded technical foul FTs, therefore, the only difference was in fact where the ball was inbounded subsequently.

BillyMac

Nevadaref wrote
... the player who was fouled actually attempted the awarded technical foul FTs, therefore, the only difference was in fact where the ball was inbounded subsequently.

If that's the case, I'm alright with that, but I'm still leaving my post up to remind rookie officials that there are subtle differences between penalties for intentional personal fouls, and technical fouls. Hopefully, OKREF won't mind.

OKREF

BillyMac wrote
If that's the case, I'm alright with that, but I'm still leaving my post up to remind rookie officials that there are subtle differences between penalties for intentional personal fouls, and technical fouls. Hopefully, OKREF won't mind.

I don't. Obviously who shoots is the biggest difference. I was really just referring to this play. There was no doubt who was going to shoot the T. The team in white was the two time defending champion, and that kid was a three time state tourney MVP. They went on to win the next day, making it 3 in a row, going for 27 ppg in their 9 state tourney wins.

Mregor

That clears up everything. I'd say there is definitely contact based on the stumbling of the player in white. Intentional personal is the correct call. Thanks for posting the video.

Rooster

OKREF wrote
Yea, I remember sitting in the locker room at half and talking about that, wished I would have had an intentional instead.

I'm not so sure you should be as hard on yourself. Is it possible that you were trying to clamp down on some building chippy-ness? Looking at the video before this play gold 20 was also acting like dope. (24:53, 27:06, 28:06, 29:02, 31:16) I'm wondering what you thought of the temperature of the game, especially considering that gold was getting wiped...

« Previous Page Next Page »