Fun With A Take Down …

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.