A lot going on during this play. (Video)

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Rufus

During camp last year they emphasized that loose balls are not an excuse for a free-for-all and that, if you get the first player piling on, you avoid a lot of grief later.

I don't know... I had a "coach whose been doing this for 20 years" tell me earlier this season that you couldn't foul anyone if the ball was loose.

Gotta admit, that took me off my game for a minute or so because I just couldn't figure out where he could've come up with that one.

Back on topic:
Definitely should've had a foul on the initial shove... I'd lean towards intentional myself.

If you don't call that, I think there could've been a backcourt violation a couple of seconds later, but it's close enough that I'd probably have passed on it. (Also, have fun with explaining to the coach why you called a best-eyes-in-the-game backcourt violation on his team 2 seconds after passing on one of his players getting shoved to the ground).

After that, we're in "sort out how many people are going to be disqualified" territory.

[JRutledge]

This is a perfect reason you need 3 person. An official at the very least would have been right on top of this play at the very least. That being said, I am shocked this was not called at some point with 2 person. This play was out in the open and the official moved his position and still did not see all the contact. Makes me wonder the experience level of the official as I cannot imagine letting any of this go because of what happen immediately after the play.

Now let us talk about what we do with the benches here? Are we ejecting anyone after nothing was originally called? It looks like the I see possibly 4 players come off the gold team bench (3 have warm ups that I can count) and I could make a case for about the same on the white bench, even though they are kind of in front of their bench. Now this appears to be the end of the quarter or half on some level, would that matter to anyone?

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a perfect reason you need 3 person. An official at the very least would have been right on top of this play at the very least. That being said, I am shocked this was not called at some point with 2 person. This play was out in the open and the official moved his position and still did not see all the contact. Makes me wonder the experience level of the official as I cannot imagine letting any of this go because of what happen immediately after the play.

Now let us talk about what we do with the benches here? Are we ejecting anyone after nothing was originally called? It looks like the I see possibly 4 players come off the gold team bench (3 have warm ups that I can count) and I could make a case for about the same on the white bench, even though they are kind of in front of their bench. Now this appears to be the end of the quarter or half on some level, would that matter to anyone?

Peace

My first thought:

If the crew is that unaware that they didn't get a foul on the play, there's no chance they're aware of who, if anyone, comes off the bench.

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I don't know... I had a "coach whose been doing this for 20 years" tell me earlier this season that you couldn't foul anyone if the ball was loose.

Yep, I've heard that a couple times this season. "how is that a foul?!", "Coach, your guy dove into the other guy's knees (who was standing still)", "BUT IT WAS A LOOSE BALL!!" "Oh, well in that case... "

On the OP, that first foul isn't even close and should be gotten 100/100 times. And if I have a good enough angle to see the defender bury an elbow in the kids ear in the process I would not have a problem with an intentional.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

My first thought:

If the crew is that unaware that they didn't get a foul on the play, there's no chance they're aware of who, if anyone, comes off the bench.

This crew's handling of this situation is a loss cause. But even if you called the foul you might have people come off the bench as it would take officials some time to get to them or likely stop a reaction. I was wondering about what we see and what we would do.

Peace

[crosscountry55]

No play on the ball. Two forearms extending in the upper shoulders/head area.

This is not a common foul. Only way it is if, because it's in the 2-p dead corner, neither of the officials got a credible look at exactly what the gold player did.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

No play on the ball. Two forearms extending in the upper shoulders/head area.

This is not a common foul. Only way it is if, because it's in the 2-p dead corner, neither of the officials got a credible look at exactly what the gold player did.

IMO, he went through the player to try to get to the ball. Sometimes they do stupid things, but that doesn't mean I'm upgrading this.

[Amesman]

What's really a shame is L, rightly or wrongly, looks like he was starting to head back the other way and seemed to have eyes on the ball/at the point of contact. Could have nipped it in the bud with a strong whistle.

[udbrky]

I like a flagrant with an EJ for that shove.

Then a possible double T for the re- and re-re-shove on the 2 in the corner

and EJ's for those leaving the bench.

This is such a great example of getting the first call right and preventive officiating imo. You bang that first foul and none of this other **** happens.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by udbrky

I like a flagrant with an EJ for that shove.

A disqualification for a shove? That's a hard sell IMO.

[RefRich]

Originally Posted by deecee

A disqualification for a shove? That's a hard sell IMO.

I agree, as I said earlier, I have an intentional but not a disqualification. I don't see how he's just going for the ball. If he's diving over the player or his arms are in a different position, maybe, but he went at the kid with a cross body block.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by deecee

A disqualification for a shove? That's a hard sell IMO.

I might be persuaded by the argument that it wasn't just a shove, it was a shove to the neck area.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I might be persuaded by the argument that it wasn't just a shove, it was a shove to the neck area.

The action after the tackle pretty well proves this is not a common foul

[deecee]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

The action after the tackle pretty well proves this is not a common foul

The action after the initial contact is completely separate, and may not happen if there was a whistle. If it did then there would be T's to issue. But in this case the officiating crew failed. They essentially allowed a wrestling match to occur.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

The action after the tackle pretty well proves this is not a common foul

No it doesn't. It does't prove that any more than it proves the fouled player was shooting the ball.