HS Intentional/Flagrant VIDEO

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I have:

Initial play: intentional

Kick: Flagrant

My reasoning is that I think the defender made a legitimate play on the ball that was overly aggressive, and the part that made it look so bad at the end was the wall was so close to the endline. If there was a normal amount of room between the endline and the wall, I don't think they crash so hard. No excuse for the kick.

In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.

Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.

And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.

Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.

And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.

The more I watch the play, the less I see it as a legitimate attempt to play the ball. I'm still not convinced that it's flagrant. Again, the worst of it comes when they hit the wall. I'm closer to flagrant than I was originally...but I'm still not there.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Smitty

The more I watch the play, the less I see it as a legitimate attempt to play the ball. I'm still not convinced that it's flagrant. Again, the worst of it comes when they hit the wall. I'm closer to flagrant than I was originally...but I'm still not there.

Absent the reaction from the other player I can see a case for intentional only. Especially if, as others have alluded, the kid had not been a problem to this point in the game.

The defender may have just been over-aggressive in trying to prevent a dunk without intending to do exactly what he did but it is in no way a legitimate play on the ball and its a very, very dangerous and violent play. Have any of you ever been taking out while in the air like that? I have and its a scary feeling that will often result in retaliation. Most people don't react well to being recklessly put in harm's way.

If this play happens in my games I'm DQing both every time. If you don't, IMO, you are asking for problems. Its not too far fetched to have a team purposely go after a star player of another team in this fashion if they think they can get a reaction that will lead to a flagrant by the opponent and only an intentional on their team.

Either way, there is no place in the game for that type of foul and I'd much rather err on the side of using the strongest penalty allowed by rule to deal with such a play.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

In what world is grabbing an airborne player around both shoulders from behind a legitimate play on the ball? Its not even close.

Easy intentional on the first play that is borderline flagrant as it can be argued that it was "violent" in nature.

And when I assess the flagrant for the kick that was a direct reaction to a dangerous and "violent" play like that, its an equally easy decision to upgrade the first act to flagrant and DQ both IMO.

This is my view of the play. I'm OK with calling this intentional and going on if the kick isn't there. As soon as that happens, I'm much more inclined to upgrade the 1st foul.