Thoughts on Block/Charge play and sequence that follows

[jeremy341a]

[jakeas2]

Looks flagrant to me. Pushing the kid in mid air by his feet and having him land nearly on his head. Not sure about the original call. I think maybe a slow whistle and you just call the flagrant and move on.

[rwodar]

This play must either be ruled a common foul, intentional foul or flagrant foul based on NFHS rules. A technical foul cannot occur due to live ball contact.

Personally this appears flagrant to me. Throwing the player down with that extended arm is unnecessary, excessive and can be perceived as an intent to harm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

FP.

Maybe ALSO a T for the squaring up that happened after the P (I thought that's what the referee was doing because he signaled block first)

[JRutledge]

It was going to be nothing, but when he threw up to the ground, he has got to go. I would call that flagrant. That is why you see the entire play.

Peace

[JRutledge]

And who is the commentator, he clearly does not know rules in question?

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Suppose Defense had LGP. Is this then a charge AND a FP? So, a double foul?

[Raymond]

I got tired of reading all this nonsense from Billy so I skipped over the last 17 or 18 posts.

There is a penalty administration for a flagrant foul and there's a penalty administration for an intentional foul. So which one are you choosing if you're going to make up some foul called intentional flagrant foul.

And quit saying the penalties are the same EXCEPT for an ejection. That's a mighty big exception. and is why you confuse yourself and start these nonsense debates.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

All fouls are either personal or technical. They also can have additional descriptors -- some of which apply to both; some of which by definition apply only to one; some of which are listed as applying to one.

Originally Posted by Raymond

There is a penalty administration for a flagrant foul and there's a penalty administration for an intentional foul.

bob jenkins provides a great followup to the post by Kelvin green. Each type of foul has descriptors listed and only those descriptors can be used, no others.

Raymond provides another piece of the puzzle, two distinctly different penalties (this was the final push over the cliff and it was a mighty big push, no question in my mind after this that I was 100% wrong).

Thanks to bob jenkins, and JRutledge, for calling me out on my rule language.

Thanks to Kelvin green, bob jenkins, and Raymond, for providing great explanations of why I was wrong.

I was wrong. Here's what I should have posted:

Defensive player held legal guarding position. Offensive player didn't charge but jumped over defensive player who then flagrantly fouled the offensive airborne shooter who was still in the act of shooting (hadn't returned to the floor yet) before the ball went in the basket. No technical foul because the ball hadn't yet gone in the basket, and the airborne shooter hadn't returned to the floor, so it was a live ball foul.

Count the basket. Offensive player gets two free throws for the flagrant personal foul with the lane cleared and his team gets the ball back at spot closest to the foul. Defensive player gets disqualified and sits on the bench for the rest of the game.

[Kelvin green]

Don’t use the term ejected for a player. The term ejection is only used twice and always used with a coach/adult.

Players are disqualified. Ejection means leaving the gym. We don’t do that with the kids. ....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Don’t use the term ejected for a player.

Good point. I knew that, but was careless in my language.

Maybe because my state interscholastic sports governing body has us fill out "Ejection Reports", but not for all disqualified players, just the ones that are disqualified for being "ejected", one flagrant (personal or technical), or two non-flagrant technical. The state probably uses the term "ejection" to differentiate those disqualified players that require an "Ejection Report", from those who are simply disqualified with five personal, or four personal fouls and one technical foul.

Of course, ejected adult coaches have to sit on the cold bus in the parking lot. And I have to fill out an "Ejection Report", but I get to do it in my nice warm office at home, and only if I was the referee. If the umpire gives the coach the "heave ho", or the "you're outta here" signal, it's still the referee who does all the paperwork.

[ilyazhito]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Don’t use the term ejected for a player. The term ejection is only used twice and always used with a coach/adult.

Players are disqualified. Ejection means leaving the gym. We don’t do that with the kids. ....

With all due respect Kelvin, you are wrong. Although players are not removed from the gym for flagrant fouls or multiple technical fouls in NFHS rules, because they are minors and require supervision (coaches are asults), their actions might merit additional penalties from their state office. In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult, so disqualification or ejection is not just merely about semantics. The distinction between removal alone and removal + discipline is enough to make a discussion about ejection vs disqualification relevant.

Returning to the OP, I agree with BillyMac's judgement of the situation.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

With all due respect Kelvin, you are wrong. Although players are not removed from the gym for flagrant fouls or multiple technical fouls in NFHS rules, because they are minors and require supervision (coaches are asults), their actions might merit additional penalties from their state office. In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult, so disqualification or ejection is not just merely about semantics. The distinction between removal alone and removal + discipline is enough to make a discussion about ejection vs disqualification relevant.

Returning to the OP, I agree with BillyMac's judgement of the situation.

No one cares about the penalties from the state office. They have absolutely nothing to do with what we call and administer.

The only place you'll find what you just posted is in the MSU rulebook.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult ...

Very, very rare, never charged it, never observed it.

However, in an unusual situation, an official has the authority to require
that these individuals who have committed a flagrant technical foul must leave the
vicinity of the court. This action is necessary when permitting such offenders to
remain at courtside would tend to incite the crowd, to incite the opponents, or to
subject the officials, opponents or others administering the game, to unsporting
harassment. In such circumstances, the official should require the individual who
has committed a flagrant foul to leave the vicinity of the court with an adult supervisor.
It must be emphasized that an official does have this authority, when the
circumstances resulting from any flagrant foul warrant it.

Kelvin green's math is 100% correct. I did a word search of the NFHS rulebook, and with the exception above, every single reference to "ejection" is in regard to adult personnel.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

With all due respect Kelvin, you are wrong. Although players are not removed from the gym for flagrant fouls or multiple technical fouls in NFHS rules, because they are minors and require supervision (coaches are asults), their actions might merit additional penalties from their state office. In theory, a player removed from the game for an ejectable offense can be sent off if supervised by an adult, so disqualification or ejection is not just merely about semantics. The distinction between removal alone and removal + discipline is enough to make a discussion about ejection vs disqualification relevant.

Returning to the OP, I agree with BillyMac's judgement of the situation.

Wrong how? Show me in the rule book where a high school player is ejected? the NFHS Book does not use the term ejection for a player... it does for an adult.

Here’s the deal... we must be precise in our terms. We had this long discussion that boiled down to definitions.

How many of us feel like fingernails on the chalk board if we hear an official use “over the back?” The more we use the precise term, the more we are likely to get it right...but hey that’s me...