Fun With A Take Down …

[BillyMac]

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?

[sdoebler]

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

[bob jenkins]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Agree.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Double agree.

The ball-watching L didn’t help matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MechanicGuy]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What type of foul is this?

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?

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!

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

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.

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 came 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, 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Perhaps almost no one was looking at the two players involved as this was away from the ball.

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.

[MechanicGuy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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 came 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, 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?

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.

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by MechanicGuy

It's easy to be caught off guard by sudden ...

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.