Fun With A Take Down …

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I still think you could call a common foul here without anything higher. Context matters to me, like what has been doing on in the game. Every player put the floor does not automatically warrant a higher foul. And at the college, they have the rule for hook and holds, which if they do the hook and hold and toss, then you have a Flagrant 2. This is not that, this is more of a pulling the arm which happens a lot in rebounding situations. A hook and hold are to deceive the official in thinking they are getting held while at the same time holding the opponent. This is a post foul that needs to be called, but as I said would need some context to help determine what kind of foul. Because if there have been some contentious moments before, I can see this being upgraded, but not automatic.

Peace

I agree. This looks like a common foul to me.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This looks like a common foul to me.

While you certainly have the right (and experience and court sense) to an opinion that this meets the NFHS definition of a common foul (not intentional, not flagrant), I can assure you that, here in my little corner of Connecticut, it's not very "common" to have a player thrown to the floor like a rag doll by an opponent.

Would you not even consider (not automatic) an intentional foul for excessive contact?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While you certainly have the right (and experience and court sense) to an opinion that this meets the NFHS definition of a common foul (not intentional, not flagrant), I can assure you that, here in my little corner of Connecticut, it's not very "common" to have a player thrown to the floor like a rag doll by an opponent.

Would you not even consider (not automatic) an intentional foul for excessive contact?

I would not, at least not the first time. It appeared more physical in part because the other player was not yielding.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I would not, at least not the first time. It appeared more physical in part because the other player was not yielding.

It would have been helpful if IAABO gave a third choice, a common foul. I wonder if they will broach this idea in their play commentary?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It would have been helpful if IAABO gave a third choice, a common foul. I wonder if they will broach this idea in their play commentary?

I do not work for IAABO, I was simply using my experience and understanding of the current rule. But this is not different on other plays where there is the likely hood of nothing because called to a flagrant foul. This is certainly a foul, but all players falling to the floor does not have to be a foul either.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It would have been helpful if IAABO gave a third choice, a common foul. I wonder if they will broach this idea in their play commentary?

They won’t because this so clearly isn’t a common foul. It is either intentional or flagrant.

I have tremendous respect for Camron’s opinions as he has put a great deal of time and effort into officiating, so it is worth noting the rare occasions when we strongly disagree.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It would have been helpful if IAABO gave a third choice, a common foul. I wonder if they will broach this idea in their play commentary?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not work for IAABO, I was simply using my experience and understanding of the current rule.

I do "work" for IAABO, but that doesn't mean that I can't express my disagreement with some of their interpretations, especially in regard to subjective judgement calls.

That being said, whether I agree, or disagree, with them, I do like their very thorough play commentary. And I hope they explore the possibility that this was just a common foul for those that want to go that route, even though I believe this to be a flagrant foul, and if not, at least an intentional foul for excessive contact.

With such a wide range of expert opinions on the Forum regarding this video (common, intentional, flagrant), I'm curious to see IAABO's rationale to justify their interpretation in their play commentary, especially with a common foul not even being listed as an original choice.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

They won’t because this so clearly isn’t a common foul. It is either intentional or flagrant.

I have tremendous respect for Camron’s opinions as he has put a great deal of time and effort into officiating, so it is worth noting the rare occasions when we strongly disagree.

I wouldn't even say we strongly disagree here. I wouldn't think twice if a partner wanted to go intentional on it. I'm not so far into saying I'd call a common foul without thinking intentional that I would oppose someone else saying it is.

[Raymond]

I'm calling an intentional. She clamped down in order to toss her down. That elbow she threw 8 seconds into the video tells me she's a dirty player who would have already been on my radar.

If someone chose to call a flagrant, I wouldn't bat an eye.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...UtAa2kmauJ.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This is a Flagrant Personal Foul.

"Off Ball" coverage is a challenge in a 2-person crew. We can see there are multiple illegal contact situations in the lane that escalate and result in the illegal contact that was ruled a foul. This is a play (commonly referred to as a "hook and hold") that began to appear at the college level a few years ago and is now creeping into the high school game.

At a minimum, this is an intentional foul. Regardless if you believe this to be an intentional foul or a flagrant foul, all officials need to understand it is a deliberate act on the part of the offender. If the contact is done in a violent manner and subjects the opponent to potential injury, the act should be considered flagrant. (56% of respondents would rule this to be a flagrant foul)

As far as the court coverage, watch how the lead official steps into the lane area extended to observe off-ball contact. Then as the ball is passed to the bench sideline, he now turns his body away from the lane to accept the ball into his PCA. Officiating in the lane area is frowned upon, as it puts you in a straight-line position to the post players in the lane. The Lead should close down to B and, if needed, move to the ball side position to cover low post players. If he had been at the B position when the ball was passed to the sideline, he could keep his torso facing the lane and back out a couple of steps to accept the ball into his PCA. The Lead should never turn their back to the lane.

The Trail is fairly stationary throughout the perimeter ball movement. There were a couple of opportunities to position adjust to get an open view between the offensive player and defensive player that she did not make. In the end, she does a good job recognizing a foul has occurred. It could have easily been missed as a ball-handler was in the lane in addition to this illegal contact.

This play illustrates how quickly contact can escalate. Officials need to be diligent and make off-ball contact a priority in their games. Getting the first foul will go a long way in preventing this type of contact.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is a Flagrant Personal Foul 55% (including me). This is an Intentional Personal Foul 45%.