Should Either Be Flagrant? (Video)

[MechanicGuy]

Only if your daughter plays for the team being fouled.

[Adam]

No, and no, but white #32 is a defensive liability due to her lack of body control.

[Dad]

Curious why you asked if they should be flagrant and not intentional.

First play was kinda almost maybe a block. Think first contact is ball and most of the impact is probably from the offensive player jumping up.

Second I'm not seeing very well, but the defense just jumps at a stupid time and makes the best of the situation by swiping at the ball.

I'd be hard pressed to call an intentional on either of these stand alone plays.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

In the first clip, officials did a good job of closing down and making their presence known.

Are we watching the same clip? Both refs who should have been getting in there are not doing so. The Lead is only sticking around because he can't seem to locate the right number. The C (who inexplicably had a whistle despite the play being in Lead's lap and having two players between him and the foul) isn't getting in there either. Hanging back and watching the players to make sure they behave is not the best thing to do here. The only dude who seems interested in getting in there is the freaking Trail!! Lead needs to be right there and let his presence be known with C right behind. That leaves Trail to hang back and observe the whole group of players.

I could see either of these as intentional based on excessive/WIF contact. Sure it's clumsy and perhaps not deliberate but those are not our criteria.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Are we watching the same clip? Both refs who should have been getting in there are not doing so. The Lead is only sticking around because he can't seem to locate the right number. The C (who inexplicably had a whistle despite the play being in Lead's lap and having two players between him and the foul) isn't getting in there either. Hanging back and watching the players to make sure they behave is not the best thing to do here. The only dude who seems interested in getting in there is the freaking Trail!! Lead needs to be right there and let his presence be known with C right behind. That leaves Trail to hang back and observe the whole group of players.

I could see either of these as intentional based on excessive/WIF contact. Sure it's clumsy and perhaps not deliberate but those are not our criteria.

#1: absolutely no consideration as an IF. Post foul action is adequately covered by officials as there is no threat of escalation. Fouler walks away and her teammate comes over to help opponent up.

#2: Wind up by fouler would give me pause to at least consider an IF based on the context of the game.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

These are hard fouls ...

It's probably just a local thing, but here in Connecticut, the term hard foul is interchangeable with an intentional foul for excessive contact. Some officials will actually report "intentional hard foul" instead of "intentional excessive contact" while using the unauthorized intentional foul excessive contact signal.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's probably just a local thing, but here in Connecticut, the term hard foul is interchangeable with an intentional foul for excessive contact. Some officials will actually report "intentional hard foul" instead of "intentional excessive contact" while using the unauthorized intentional foul excessive contact signal.

Are you calling an intentional on either/both of these plays?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

#1: absolutely no consideration as an IF. Post foul action is adequately covered by officials as there is no threat of escalation. Fouler walks away and her teammate comes over to help opponent up.

#2: Wind up by fouler would give me pause to at least consider an IF based on the context of the game.

So you have wind-up in the second play but not the first? I see it in both.

[SAK]

#1- Depending on how the game has gone this might be a no call as the defender hit ball first then body, making the contact incidental. It was not even a hard foul. Seemed to be just some bad basketball.

#2- This one is a foul no question about that. It is however only a block. No need to think twice about it. Not even necessary to have a conversation about it, yes it is a hard foul but the was nothing excessive or malicious about this foul.

On another note, what is the deal with the mechanics. I did not see any preliminary signals on either foul and did not see any communication on the double whistle. How does anyone know that there was not a multiple foul or which defender the foul was being called on?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by SAK

#1- Depending on how the game has gone this might be a no call as the defender hit ball first then body, making the contact incidental. It was not even a hard foul. Seemed to be just some bad basketball.

#2- This one is a foul no question about that. It is however only a block. No need to think twice about it. Not even necessary to have a conversation about it, yes it is a hard foul but the was nothing excessive or malicious about this foul.

On another note, what is the deal with the mechanics. I did not see any preliminary signals on either foul and did not see any communication on the double whistle. How does anyone know that there was not a multiple foul or which defender the foul was being called on?

I wouldn't have a preliminary signal here, either.

[SAK]

Originally Posted by Rich

I wouldn't have a preliminary signal here, either.

@Rich

Why not is that not required by NFHS in the mechanics manual. It is possible that its not but living in Arizona we are required to give a prelim.

[crosscountry55]

Prelims, though technically required in the manual, are inherently a local preference, or sometimes a preference of the individual official when he/she feels some "on-the-spot" information is advisable.

See how many preliminary signals you see when watching NCAA BB on TV. You don't see too many.

Likewise in HS, you won't see too many unless locally expected. When I worked in KS, the state coordinator wanted them, so we used them. Sounds like that's the case in AZ as well. But I would say in most places they are not strictly mandated.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SAK

@Rich

Why not is that not required by NFHS in the mechanics manual. It is possible that its not but living in Arizona we are required to give a prelim.

Not every state follows NFHS Mechanics. So it is possible that no one cares about this the way you would at the location of this video. We are also required or asked to give a preliminary signal at the spot, but many times it is not done. It is really not a big deal IMO.

Peace

[zm1283]

We are required to give a preliminary signal at the spot of the foul. I'm so used to it now I don't even think about it. The only one I really don't like doing is the "hit" signal (I think it's illegal use of the hands). It just feels awkward doing it at the spot of the foul, but I do what I'm told.

The problem with NFHS signals is that there are several fouls that I think are hard to convey with their limited signal chart. I wish we were given more freedom to signal but I can see why they don't want officials making up their own stuff on their own.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

See how many preliminary signals you see when watching NCAA BB on TV. You don't see too many.

The NCAA manual is not the same as the NFHS manual. As a general statement (and subject to all the "when in rome" caveats already mentioned), NCAA does not require preliminary signals nearly as often as NFHS.