Ejected From Tournament (Video)
 

White 15 was ejected from the game and the tournament.

To coaches and parents, officials' calls can sometimes be frustrating but the simultaneous call here and the ejection were impressive.

<iframe width="960" height="540" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xBcaqUaxCxM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

According to the scoreboard info: 4th quarter, 9 point lead for blue, when white delivers a two-handed shove in the back on a breakaway.
Easy flagrant personal foul.

Wow. Excellent call on the Flagrant Personal Foul.

Important to note that under NFHS rules, players and substitutes are disqualified. Coaches and other adult bench personnel are ejected. If the disqualified players are still causing trouble or have potential to cause trouble you can have them removed but they must be escorted to the locker room by an adult and 3rd.

Easy call, glad they made it.

Question for the group, would you direct A11 in this play to leave the game under either 3-3-6 or 3-3-8?

Yes, absolutely. More 3-3-8 than 3-3-6, I would heavily emphasize player safety in this case.

Yep, once the coach comes onto the court to check on her, she is getting removed or a time-out will be charged.

Please tell me what signs, symptoms, or behaviors consistent with a concussion the fouled player is exhibiting?
She quickly gets up on her own and walks over near her team bench.
I think that an official would be overstepping his authority as well as misapplying a rule to require that this player leave the game under 3-3-8.
3-3-6 is clear and obvious when the coach comes out onto the court. Just enforce what's clear. No need to reach here.

I agree with this.

I don't believe it applies in this video, but had the coach immediately came off his bench and moved toward his player, I think there is an argument that he legally came on to the court to prevent or break up a fight, as fights will often times start following a flagrant foul. In that case, I would at least consider allowing that player to stay in the game. In the video, we can't actually see the coach's initial reaction, as he is off-camera. Had he immediately stood up and moved on to the court, and then walked out the last 2-3 steps once he realized there was no fight imminent, I might have even considered it here.

Last summer, soccer made a rule change that if a player is injured by a foul that results in a yellow or red card, the player can be treated without having to leave the field. To me, that would make sense as a BB rule for a player that is a victim of a flagrant foul.

Absolutely. Especially in a youth/high school game. Full force into a structural wall, if that's my daughter I'd want her evaluated or to sit a few minutes.

I'd expect the same by any official. A coach shouldn't be concerned by anything but his/her players safety

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

No one has commented on this... OP said, "To coaches and parents, officials' calls can sometimes be frustrating but the simultaneous call here and the ejection were impressive."

To me... coaches and parents that think it's ok to intentionally push opponents into a brick wall (yes ... thinly padded) ... "can sometimes be frustrating"

You seem to be on the side that White 15 was unfairly punished. That literally makes me sick to my stomach.

I think the OPer meant officials calls in general can sometimes be frustrating, not this specific call. At least that is how I interpret it. Especially since OP seems to be a parent/fan of the team in the dark jersey.

Perhaps I read it wrong. if I did, I apologize. Most of his other videos have been with his team in white, so I could have assumed inappropriately.

Are we ejecting the defender because of how the player fell or because of how hard the player was pushed or both?

I am not convinced this is a slam dunk flagrant foul. Because if the player stayed somewhat on their feet are we calling anything more than an intentional?

Peace

The BLACK team is our team in this clip. We were all very appreciative of the officials' quick and decisive actions.

But how is this for being sick to your stomach... the coach of the WHITE team was not happy with the decision and he said of the push, quote, "That's just basketball."

That coach is just hopeless. Might as well whack him.

Don't play the what if game with this stuff. Two handed shove like that is flagrant in this case. Doesn't mean it always is but in this case, yes, it is

1. It's not just basketball, it's the opposite of basketball.
2. The only way 11 shoots her free throws here is if her coach used a timeout to keep her in the game. By coming onto the court like that to check on her, that's no longer optional.

I had a 2 handed shove that I merely called intentional.

But that was in the half-court on a rebounded ball and there was little momentum involved. On a fast break, my call would've been different.

I've had one I called intentional. Same kid did it later that game and my partner called it flagrant. Mine could have gone either way, the second one was with more force on an even smaller player.

I'm also going to note the officials did not eject this kid from the tournament. Tournament officials must have done that, either through direct intervention or established rules.

We had a 2 handed shove in a game earlier this year in a BV game that I regret not being more stubborn that it should've been flagrant. It was the second time the kid had done something like that --he gave an light 2 handed shove the first time that didn't add much if anything to the kids momentum, and the second time the other kid went plowing into the bleachers behind the basket. I wanted to go flagrant, but my partners did not want to excuse a kid from a game for that. My argument was that it was the second time, and there was a real risk of injury. In fact, the kid who was pushed was out of the game the rest of the first half with rib area pain. We talked about it in the car on the way home, and they both agreed after I presented my case, but on the court I wasn't going to argue when two of the three don't want to upgrade. I tried to get video from both coaches to post here to get thoughts, but neither sent it.

As an official, it's not our job to diagnose any sort of injury unless there are visible symptoms. She got up almost right away and didn't show any signs of trauma. I'm not sure the concussion rules apply here.

I would leave the diagnosing to the parents and coaches in this situation.

I think you have a great point. I think the subsequent fall into a hard wall after being pushed in the back is enough for a flagrant, followed by disqualification.

I would have done the same in this situation. Who knows what that girl will do next if she isn't tossed now.

Actually, the concussion protocol varies from state to state. The OhioHSAA protocol is completely different from the MichiganHSAA protocol.

The MichiganHSAA protocol just calls for an official to have a trainer look at the player if the official thinks that the player has suffered a concussion and that is the limit of the officials involvement.

The OhioHSAA protocol says that an official who thinks a player has concussion like symptoms to have the player removed from the game immediately and once the decision makes that decision, that player cannot return to competition for the remainder of the day. The official also has a special form to complete and submit to the OhioHSAA.

It should be noted that the State of Ohio has a law that has been in effect for almost four years that requires anyone that officiates youth sports of any to have completed at least once every three years the NFHS or CDC online concussion course. That means that part of the OhioHSAA annual registration process requires the official to provide a copy of his valid NFHS or CDC certificate. The OhioHSAA keeps track of each officials certificate and if it expires during the school year and if an official's certificate expires during the school year and he does not provide the OhioHSAA with an up to date certificate he is automatically suspended and all officiating contracts are immediately null and void. The law also requires any out of state officials who come into Ohio to officiate/umpire youth tournaments during the summer must have a valid NFHS or CDC concussion certificate.

MTD, Sr.

I think it is an appropriate question. We always ask "what if" questions here. Because the contact was not a lot and was not that bad alone, but the result was bad for sure. I am just wondering if we change our minds if she never goes head first into the wall. And I am not so sure I would call a flagrant in that situation.

Peace

They should absolutely implement this rule.

In this case, this is a ridiculous argument. She was shoved into a wall. You cannot separate the cause and effect. They are one in the same in these types of things.

1. That's the most insane law ever (ok, maybe it's tied). Expecting officials to be experts on concussions based on an online class is just stupid.

2. Both states may have different protocols, but they both still start at the same point: when the official think the player may have a concussion. In the OP video, there's nothing to indicate that. She didn't hit a hard unprotected wall, she hit the mat. Her hands cushioned the impact. She got right up.

She's still heading to the bench without a timeout.

Ridiculous? Well I have seen many plays that did not have the player go down that we have not had a flagrant foul. So if you disagree that is fine, but I think the actual contact with the player was minor. It does not take much to knock someone off their square for sure. And I have no issue with the call that was made here. But wondering if that matters. Now it would to me and I am just fine with the situation because sometimes there is no wall that close in these situations or it is further away. But again I have been doing this awhile to consider all the possibilities. If you don't, I have no issue with you, but for those that want to know and I know I am not the only one considering this if they watch this video, you have to have something to tell them if the question the severity of hitting the wall. Been doing this for some time with video and people tend to ask for other possibilities.

Peace

I don't think its a bad law. It isn't trying to make anyone experts. They just are taking concussions a lot more seriously than ever before. With good reason. We have an online class/test here. It just describes symptoms, talks about what to look for and explains seriousness. It isn't trying to make us a treater. Just have some idea what to look for. Provides information to us they that want us to have..

If she didn't fall into the wall - is it still worthy of disqualification?

Until one of you "misdiagnoses" a concussion and is named in a lawsuit with a line of questioning like: "Did you or did you not watch the online video?"

Speaking from the perspective of an Ohio official. The law requiring the Concussion Certificate is not a bad one, because it also applies to all coaches both JrHS/HS and youth. When I am umpiring an ASA (now USA Softball) tournament in Ohio in the summer the law means that the coaches as well as the umpires are put on notice that we all are to put the safety of the player before anything else. The irony of the law is that there is now penalty for officiating/umpiring without the certificate. Only the OhioHSAA takes action against officials that do not have the certificate, and the OhioHSAA gives the officials to take action if they think that the player MAY be exhibiting concussion like symptoms.

MTD, Sr.

Not for me.

We're not asked to diagnose anything. Pretty simple here--if a kid has an event and /or he looks the least bit "off" send him out. School must then have him evaluated by certified trainer. If in doubt send them out. Easy.

Referees aren't getting sued every day and when we are we aren't losing. Law actually favors officials in liability area.

I might have because she made a point to get close enough to bend elbows and gave her pretty good 2 handed shove while in the air. Total non basketball play that could cause big damage, wall or no wall.

I don't care about the proximity of the wall or even how hard she was shoved, I care about the exposure of the offensive player in this situation.

She had no ability to absorb the content, she was in a compromised position, and in all likelihood didn't know she was about to get shoved from behind. These add up to a flagrant for me.

I had a similar situation a few weeks ago, smaller girl goes to foul a larger heavier set girl at the end of a game. The defender came and two hand shoved the other girl, but in this case the offensive player knew it was coming, absorbed it and even turned into the contact to avoid it. I called an intentional.

I never once said anything about a concussion. I said she should be checked. Coach is welcome to disagree and put her back in by T/O or re-entry rules.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Me either.

As someone else has mentioned -- you can't separate cause and effect from these types of calls. If it's a two handed shove and she doesn't go to the ground at all, I'll go intentional, but flagrant would not fit the situation.

Not here. If she's sent off to be checked for a concussion, she's not returning without the approval of an appropriate health care professional.

I think putting the onus on officials is insane. Here we only send them off if they're exhibiting signs / symptoms -- then the health care professional makes the call. As they should.

Concussions I agree.

But running full force could cause other injuries. If you simply say Bob, #10 was the cause of my stopping play, you've said nothing about concussions, a broken finger or anything else.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

NY State they are done for the day and need a doctor's note clearing them for when they want to return to play.

So you're saying the shove on its own, without more info is worthy of the flagrant? I think the entire action, including the results need to be factored in. What if the shooter lands on her feet? I just don't think I could justify a flagrant in that situation, whereas an intentional foul is easily justifiable.

Here we send them out if they are exhibiting signs or symptoms of a concussion, in our opinion.

But whether they can return that day depends on the physician or LAT who examines the player. If that person decides the athlete does not have a concussion and is not exhibiting signs/symptoms and is fit to play, that's all that's required.

If there is no physician or LAT available, the player is done for the day.

If a concussion is diagnosed, the player is done for the day. If a player is exhibiting signs / symptoms to the doctor or LAT, the player is done for the day.

I'm not a doctor or LAT and I'm not the one who should be deciding these things. Even so, I can have a player removed if I'm not satisfied that the player is OK.

---------
WIAA (WI) Policy:

If you suspect a player may have a concussion, that athlete should be immediately removed from play. The injured athlete should be kept out of play until they are cleared to return by an appropriate health care provider. If the appropriate health care provider determines the athlete is not exhibiting the signs/symptoms of a concussion and does not have a concussion, they may return to play.

A physician or LAT may evaluate an athlete for concussion. If they determine that the athlete is not displaying the signs of a concussion or does not have a concussion, the athlete may return to play. If they determine that the athlete is displaying the signs of a concussion or does in fact have a concussion, the athlete may not return to play (with or without a note) that day.

WIAA Sports Medical Advisory Council identifies a physician and licensed athletic trainer (LAT) under the direct supervision of a physician as an appropriate health care professional for determining return to play other than the same day.

This type of foul can't be considered in a vacuum. Context, game temperature and the result all should factor into what needs to be called here.

I've called a nearly identical play a flagrant foul also. The game situation was the same as this one and the player had been a problem already that game. That made flagrant the right call.

Let me rephrase my Iowa friend: Until someone misses a concussion and is held responsible because he was, after all, trained to recognize (not treat, but recognize) a concussion and have a player removed from play.

Or, we go ahead and send a player to the bench and get sued for affecting the game because it was the best player and a neurosurgeon showed up and said there was never a concussion.

I think it is. A blatant 2 handed shove in the back will only lead to something worse later. That's not a basketball move or play. That's dirty. Get her out of the game.

Is this a serious comment? Is suing for this reason a real thing? I've never heard of a lawsuit for affecting a game, much less for the reason being discussed. Have you actually seen/heard of it before?

Case in Cobb county years ago. Georgia game to go to playoffs. 4th down and 20 or something. Defense is called for roughing punter. (Should been automatic first down/I don't do football.) Officials gave yardage but no first down. End of game when it happened. Other team gets ball and kicks field goal to win. If zebras don't screw up rule other team runs out clock and wins. Johhnys mom sues. Case tossed out of Court.

Jeff will know more about it but there was a rule screw up or something that if not made a different team would have played for State title here this past season. Court threw it out.

Court will not get involved in correcting this stuff.
Referees don't lose cases. Referees aren't being sued.

The referee is low on totem pole. There are administrators, multiple coaches and parents in line for responsibility before us. They see Johhny bump his head also. They know Johnny. They all have more responsibility under law to Johnny than we do. It's not close. The programs are there to help us realize head injuries are serious and what to look for. For referees to lose a case like this it would need to be proven that we almost wanted Johhny to get hurt. Willful wanton. Not going to happen.

A. Question: the OP says that White 15 was ejected from the game and from the tournament? Why from the tournament? Unless we are talking about her missing the next game as part of the consequence of being ejected from this game? I am assuming that is what is meant in the OP, but want to clarify in my own mind...as someone else already stated, we can disqualify the player from the game, but certainly have no authority to disqualify a player from the tournament.

U can toss her from the game and that's it. Up to school, league, and/or state association as to what happens next. State here says you have to sit next game. That is up to state to enforce. If you toss coach today he should sit next game. If you have his next game and he is there it is not your place to say he can't coach. Referee game and report. State, conference etc deal w him.

There may be an appeal in process. I don't know, and I don't care.

Sorry, I'm slow don't get it. I toss him. That's my job. State rules say he should sit next game but that's not up to me. I don't care if he is there or not for next game. That was my point to official. Referee and don't worry if he sits or not. Report it and let state deal with it.

That is what intentional fouls are for. Two hand shoves in the back are just that, usually.

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

I agree with you and an intentional or flagrant foul argument can be won on both sides.

Where I am from, I believe most officials would call this flagrant with a disqualification and that call would be supported.

I think that was a vicious 2 handed shove. Above and beyond other intentional fouls I have called. She's gone and she can take the rest of the game to think about it.

That's my point. Some might want to get involved if they know it's the next game and they know the state rule. I'm still not, for the same reasons you mention. I just added that the coach may legitimately be able to coach while he appeals or something. Either way, my hands are off.

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

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...

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.

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

NY has a shot clock.

I Googled the name of the school, too.

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

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.

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

Aren't you fancy, using words like googled.

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.

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.

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.

No.

Peace

No.

Let's be honest, the chances of anyone staying on their feet in this case is slim to none. Debating whether or not this shooter would have stayed on their feet and a flagrant call is proper is pointless in this case. Show me a video of a shooter being pushed from behind while airborne and landing on their feet and let the debate begin.

I do not think hitting the wall is a factor here. Without the wall I would still call a flagrant.

I totally disagree. I see a lot of players get pushed like this and stay on their feet. Again, the configuration of the court does matter and would be a factor. Not all players are under that much control. But to say that would not happen, is not very realistic if you have seen what these athletes do.

Peace

Just to clarify, when I said shooter in the later part of my post I meant attacking the basket, as shown in the original video. If you see that a lot then I would be very suprised. These types of plays don't come around often.