Ejected From Tournament (Video)

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Welpe

It's called the super flagrant foul. It's right there in Rule 4.

Kidding aside, I just took that to mean that was the consequence imposed by the tournament organizer.

Yeah, that's what I am assuming too. But you know what they say about assuming...

[Rich]

These are HS games. I thought the OP made that clear in the other thread. And with a shot clock, I'm guessing in CA.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I worked a game last night that had end lines that had nothing close to them within 15 to 20 feet. I am not so sure I would have called a flagrant if the very contact took place in my game last night.

Peace

IMO if she lands on her feet and doesn't hit the wall or anything there is no way I'm going flagrant.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

These are HS games. I thought the OP made that clear in the other thread. And with a shot clock, I'm guessing in CA.

NY has a shot clock.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by deecee

NY has a shot clock.

I Googled the name of the school, too.

[Welpe]

The ad on the wall with the 661 area code indicates that it's in the Bakersfield area. That actually explains a lot.

[ODog]

All I know is that my main takeaway from all of xr's clips is this:
He is part of a Hall of Fame collection of the most brazen, outspoken, obnoxious and objectionable group of fans who root for whatever this team is. The commentary is so consistently ludicrous and outrageous that I barely even see the plays on the court.

And the fact that it all plays out in garbage games with fewer than 30 fans only magnifies the despicability. I've never done it at the HS level, but I've seen it done and been on crews where it's been done, so I have a hard time believing that at least one of these trolls isn't tossed on an almost-weekly basis.

[Texas Aggie]

Because if the player stayed somewhat on their feet are we calling anything more than an intentional?

You can't play ifs. IF she didn't get pushed at all...

The player committing the foul is responsible for the amount of contact endured. This was a dangerous situation and I have no trouble DQing the player.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

You can't play ifs. IF she didn't get pushed at all...

The player committing the foul is responsible for the amount of contact endured. This was a dangerous situation and I have no trouble DQing the player.

Well you can if you think that makes a factor in the call. Even to call intentional foul you can consider if the contact was excessive, but this certainly was only excessive if the wall is a factor. If the player is under some control, I could see an intentional called for sure but nothing else. That is why I asked the question in the first place to see if that at all was a factor for most. It would be for me for sure.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Rich

I Googled the name of the school, too.

Aren't you fancy, using words like googled.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well you can if you think that makes a factor in the call. Even to call intentional foul you can consider if the contact was excessive, but this certainly was only excessive if the wall is a factor. If the player is under some control, I could see an intentional called for sure but nothing else. That is why I asked the question in the first place to see if that at all was a factor for most. It would be for me for sure.

Peace

I agree. In this case I have no problem with going flagrant. However in a case where the offence lands on her feet and hits nothing I would not go with a flagrant.

[so cal lurker]

Would folks consider two hands at the waist on a layup automatically to be at least intentional?

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Would folks consider two hands at the waist on a layup automatically to be at least intentional?

No. I have seen a very slight push on the hips called a regular shooting foul this year. It really depends on the severity and the temperature of the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Would folks consider two hands at the waist on a layup automatically to be at least intentional?

I'm thinking about it, but it's not automatic. In the OP, this is at least intentional regardless of the way the shooter lands, though.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Would folks consider two hands at the waist on a layup automatically to be at least intentional?

No.

Peace