Fun With A Take Down …
 

What type of foul is this? Observe the play and in the post Red No. 15 commits a foul. Make a determination as to what type of foul should be ruled.

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

Two choices: This is an Intentional Personal Foul. This is a Flagrant Personal Foul.

My comment: This is a Flagrant Personal Foul. There were actually two fouls of a violent nature by Red #15 against White #32. The first was a Red #15 using her left elbow to strike White #32 in the chest. The second was Red #15 hooking and throwing White #32 to the ground.

Thoughts?

I would go with intentional foul, but can see arguements either way

A couple of earlier fouls that, if called or at least addressed orally, would help to prevent this later escalation.

Rough Play ...
 

Agree.

Double agree.

The ball-watching L didn’t help matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Based solely on this one possession, I find it hard to believe that she hasn't been toeing the line between physical and dirty/dangerous play prior to this. If that is the case, she's gone.

Other levels address this kind of action, the NF does not. Part of the problem if you ask me. I probably would call a regular foul but would have likely called something before this action.

Peace

My choices would be an intentional personal foul for both situations, but I can see the merit in deeming the deliberate strike with the elbow as a flagrant personal foul. Perhaps I am not grasping the danger level of the hook and throw fully enough, but it doesn’t seem to rise to my threshold of flagrant. It is clear that both fouls are at a level which is more than a common foul.

This is an excellent video which will give me the opportunity for reflection upon the level of violence in these actions and the potential for injury to the opponent. I may not be penalizing these actions severely enough. If I am one level below where I should be in order to protect the safety of the players, I would welcome having my eyes opened to that.

Billy, thanks for posting and sharing these!

The hook and throw is much more dangerous, in my opinion. Very easy to tear up a shoulder that way, to say nothing of the impact on the floor.

Despite Its Violent Nature ...
 

And yet, nobody in the video reacted to this play as if it was of a violent nature.

Not the players, not the officials, and not the offended head coach. The players just stood around (nobody immediately rushed to the aid of White #32). The Trail just sounded her whistle and headed to the reporting area. The Lead just stayed glued to his spot on the opposite side of the lane. White head coach just stayed in his coaching box with his arms calmly crossed.

Maybe this wasn't as violent as I first thought?

If it had been violent, opponents would be "jawing" at each other, with teammates coming to the aid of White #32. Both officials would be moving toward the two involved players to prevent any further escalation. The coach would immediately be complaining for an upgraded foul while getting ready to move toward his injured player.

Why didn't this play go sideways?

Perhaps almost no one was looking at the two players involved as this was away from the ball. Hard to get upset about something that one doesn’t see.

Free Ice Cream ...
 

True. The rough play was away from the ball.

But the rough contact happened right in front of the Trail (not sure, but she may even have called a foul on the "throw down").

The Trail "got out of Dodge" like the table was giving away free ice cream, despite the fact that there was a player lying face down on the floor.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xVkDfaoOSU...move-along.jpg

They likely didn't see the full play. Nothing about this is a common foul.

The potential for injury from plays like this is why the NCAA made simply hooking-and-holding a flagrant foul.

Trail should have, at a minimum, recognized the violence in the action (one player threw another to the floor) and moved in accordingly. I don't necessarily fault the official for not upgrading the call. It's easy to be caught off guard by sudden escalations.

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

Keep It Simple Stupid ...
 

I got caught off guard this week. Not my finest hour.

I'm the referee. Before throwin to start third period, after my period starting whistle, there's a surprise (not the good kind), B2 grabs and holds A2 by the arm, right in front of me. Easy call. I instinctively sound my whistle, fist in the air, and only then realize that I still have the ball (not yet at the disposal of A1).

As I take a step toward the table, I only then realize that this is a dead ball foul and should be reported as a technical foul. As I take a second step toward the table, I only then realize that as a dead ball contact foul it must be either intentional or flagrant. I report it as an intentional technical foul (even though I probably wouldn't call it intentional if it had occurred a few seconds later after the ball was at the disposal of A1). Team B coach politely questioned the technical aspect (free throws by any opposing player) that I was able to explain because the ball was dead.

Two free throws by any player on Team A, and then the ball. Only then do I realize that the throwin is now no longer an alternating possession throwin but a result of the technical foul, so I tell the table to not switch the arrow.

I was pretty sure about the penalties, so I didn't bother to discus it with my partner (in hindsight, I wish I had, he would have probably talked me out of "making the easy look difficult").

Not my finest hour.

In hindsight, after sounding my whistle, fist in the air, I probably should have just yelled at B2 to cut it out (admitting to myself that the contact was probably not intentional), called it an inadvertent whistle, and played on with the alternating possession throwin to start the third period.


https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.B...=0&w=300&h=300

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

Rag Doll (Frankie Valli And The Four Seasons, 1964) ...
 

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.

Third Choice, A Common Foul ...
 

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

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.

Very Thorough Play Commentary ...
 

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.

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.

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

IAABO Survey Says …
 

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%.