Coach appears to headbutt official

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Interesting....

The call that led to the T was wrong, IMO. The defender slid in late (after the shooter was airborne) and the contact was well off center (meaning there probably wouldn't have even been contact if not for the defender sliding in late.) Call should have been a block.

Either way, the response by the coach was entire unacceptable.

Camron:

I agree with you about the charging call. While I have no problem with the L making a call on this play, the C had the best look at the play and if there were (and I do not know if there was) a double whistle, the L should have let the C take the call.

Mark, Jr., and I had a similar situation last night in our 8th grade boys' game. I was L, opposite the Table, when A1 drove from above the FT extended but just on the opposite the Table of the side of the court. A1, while airborne, slammed into B1 who was standing in the middle of the FTL just in front of the Basket. We had a double whistle and while the contact was in my PCA I let Mark have the call because he had the best look of the whole play while I had to look through a group of players to see A1. To be honest, I had a charge by A1, but by letting Mark (the official who had the best look at the whole play) we got the call correct because it was a Block by B1.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I hope that official presses charges against the HC.

[Eastshire]

When we get an unexpected attack to our head, we jerk back. If that jerk puts our shoulders far enough behind our hips, we fall down. That's just how the human body works. So, no, he doesn't appear to "sell" the attack. He just reacts to it. To further this, he gets up immediately in the longer video.

The biggest mistake officials in all sports make (myself included) is staying within arms reach of people who are angry with us. For our own safety, we should be standing no closer than a couple of feet from anyone who is currently upset with us. Unfortunately, it's come to us having to consider our safety while we work.

I'm surprised they haven't fired the coach already.

[PAlbc]

I can assure you he won't be coaching, and completely agree with that.

With that being said the legal ramifications (and monetary) jump significantly between an intimidation move (acting like you are going to headbutt) and actually making contact. I hope you can understand that. No coach should ever respond to an official that way (and should rightly be removed from coaching) , but it's also not right for that same coach to get charged with assault if the official did simply "sell" or embellish contact that was or was not there.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by PAlbc

I can assure you he won't be coaching, and completely agree with that.

With that being said the legal ramifications (and monetary) jump significantly between an intimidation move (acting like you are going to headbutt) and actually making contact. I hope you can understand that. No coach should ever respond to an official that way (and should rightly be removed from coaching) , but it's also not right for that same coach to get charged with assault if the official did simply "sell" or embellish contact that was or was not there.

Physical contact is not needed for an assault charge. I know from personal experience as I had to go to court once to (successfully) defend myself against an assault charge. At no time was it every alleged that I made physical contact.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Physical contact is not needed for an assault charge. I know from personal experience as I had to go to court once to (successfully) defend myself against an assault charge. At no time was it every alleged that I made physical contact.

And this, my friends, is the difference between ASSAULT and BATTERY. BATTERY is normally the charge when contact is made.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

And this, my friends, is the difference between ASSAULT and BATTERY. BATTERY is normally the charge when contact is made.

Correct.
Assault--"I'm going to beat your a$$"
Battery--punch in the face
Assault & Battery--"I'm going to beat your a$$", followed by a punch in the face

[APG]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

And this, my friends, is the difference between ASSAULT and BATTERY. BATTERY is normally the charge when contact is made.

As alluded to earlier...depends on the jurisdiction. Many (maybe even most?) don't make the distinction anymore and have their assault laws reflect that...to include either threaten and/or bodily contact.

As to the play....I don't know how anyone can say the slot should have had first crack at this. This is one of the lead's bread and butter plays....secondary defender in the lane. Slot is not going to be able to see the lateral movement as well as the lead and determine whether the defender got to his spot prior to the offensive player being airborne.

With the technical fouls....I agree that the trail came in too quickly with his T. I say that with the caveat that both officials are on relative equal footing (i.e experience level). I could perhaps see a CC coming in a little quicker with the T to help his younger (less experienced) partner. Otherwise. I think he needs to give partner a chance to take care of business. He doesn't do so...then by all means T him up.

[Smitty]

As long as we're all speculating, my thought was the T initially sprinted over to act as a buffer between the coach and the L because he didn't want the coach following the L all the way to the table. But I bet he heard something as he closed in that was T worthy and just ended up in a bad place when he felt the need to T him up. But who knows.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by PAlbc

I can assure you he won't be coaching, and completely agree with that.

With that being said the legal ramifications (and monetary) jump significantly between an intimidation move (acting like you are going to headbutt) and actually making contact. I hope you can understand that. No coach should ever respond to an official that way (and should rightly be removed from coaching) , but it's also not right for that same coach to get charged with assault if the official did simply "sell" or embellish contact that was or was not there.

Generally speaking (as some states use slightly different terms), if the coach did not make contact, he's guilty of assault. If he did make contact, he's guilty of battery.

Regardless, the official didn't sell or embellish anything. He simply reacted in the natural manner to a sudden attack to the head.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Generally speaking (as some states use slightly different terms), if the coach did not make contact, he's guilty of assault. If he did make contact, he's guilty of battery.

Regardless, the official didn't sell or embellish anything. He simply reacted in the natural manner to a sudden attack to the head.

If you look at the video on USA Today, which has a very different angle than the video posted in this thread, it sure looks like he makes contact.

[Smitty]

The USA Today video (different angle) which shows the head butt a bit more clearly is here: USA Today Article

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Smitty

If you look at the video on USA Today, which has a very different angle than the video posted in this thread, it sure looks like he makes contact.

He made contact chest-to-chest, which caused the official to fall. So if he ends up with a battery charge to go along with an assault charge, oh well for him.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

He made contact chest-to-chest, which caused the official to fall.

Without a better angle, this is what I think happened too. Between the official's reflexive jerking his head back and getting an extra "push" from the coach's belly, he fell down and got right back up. I didn't see any indication from the official that he got hit in the head (e.g. putting his hand to his face).

The coach still needs to go.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Camron:

I agree with you about the charging call. While I have no problem with the L making a call on this play, the C had the best look at the play and if there were (and I do not know if there was) a double whistle, the L should have let the C take the call.

Mark, Jr., and I had a similar situation last night in our 8th grade boys' game. I was L, opposite the Table, when A1 drove from above the FT extended but just on the opposite the Table of the side of the court. A1, while airborne, slammed into B1 who was standing in the middle of the FTL just in front of the Basket. We had a double whistle and while the contact was in my PCA I let Mark have the call because he had the best look of the whole play while I had to look through a group of players to see A1. To be honest, I had a charge by A1, but by letting Mark (the official who had the best look at the whole play) we got the call correct because it was a Block by B1.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I hope that official presses charges against the HC.

Secondary defender, play's in the lane. This belongs 100% to the L.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rich

Secondary defender, play's in the lane. This belongs 100% to the L.

There is no such animal as a "secondary defender" in NFHS Basketball Rules (Remember: The reason the LGP rule is written as it is, is because the Player in control of the Ball should expect to be guarded from the instant that he/she gains PC until he/she is not longer in PC.).

I don't have a problem with a double whistle (C and L) on this play. And from where A1 started his drive down the lane I would expect that C would have the best look at the whole play. But, from the video, it appeared that C was not very engaged in officiating the play. He did not close down on the drive to get a good look at the play and instead took the "Leaning Tower of Pizza" approach to look around a couple of players that were between him and the play, and never had a whistle on the play. Once the L made the call he seemed to not even be interested in keeping a foot in the bucket to be in the proper position in case Team A pressed when Team B inbounded the Ball on the End Line after the PCF.

And as much as I love calling a charge (And I do resemble the L in the video: short, stout, and bald, .), if I were the L in this play and the C also had a whistle, I would have defered to the C.

Even after the assault by the HC he was very slow moving in getting to point of the confrontation. I have not watched the whole game but in the snippet of video I did watch of the play he just seemed like he did not want to be on the court. His body language just did not look good.

MTD, Sr.