Assaulted last night

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You can't,by rule,have an intentional foul after the whistle, unless it is an intentional technical foul. An intentional personal foul, by definition, is a live-ball foul only.The whistle, by definition, made the ball dead in this case, so the foul occured during the dead ball period. Has to be a T. [/B]

Very true...I didn't communicate well...
What I should have said was if it is a T, since it is a dead ball, it would be an intentional technical...not just a T. When I stated not necessarily a T that was wrong, since it was a dead ball (after the whistle). I should have said not necessarily a Flagrant Foul, which would be an Intentional Flagrant Foul during a dead ball.

Again, you must of thought it warranted a foul being called because...Rule 4-19-1 NOTE: "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is commited by or on an airborne shooter."

Hey, hang in there...I bet most of us officials in this forum joint has gone through similar stuff after games...we've all got stories.

RD

[tnroundballref]

Originally posted by RookieDude

Very true...I didn't communicate well...
What I should have said was if it is a T, since it is a dead ball, it would be an intentional technical...not just a T. When I stated not necessarily a T that was wrong, since it was a dead ball (after the whistle). I should have said not necessarily a Flagrant Foul, which would be an Intentional Flagrant Foul during a dead ball.

Again, you must of thought it warranted a foul being called because...Rule 4-19-1 NOTE: "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is commited by or on an airborne shooter."

Hey, hang in there...I bet most of us officials in this forum joint has gone through similar stuff after games...we've all got stories.

RD [/B]

Thanks Dude,

I must admit, I was pretty keyed up when I got home and kept replaying the whole situation over and over in my head trying to understnad what I could have done differently to prevent the whole thing from happening. I'm still not sure what the answer is. Thanks for all the support from everyone ! It is appreciated.

We are required in my state to have a security meeting prior to all HS varsity contests. Those attending this meeting are the Referee, all head coaches (boys and girls), the game Administrator(GA)and a law enforcement officer. We discuss sportsmanship, and find out where to locate the GA and law enforcement in case a situation arises.

I may consider to start having a similar meeting at my grade school contests. What is the policy in other areas?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by RookieDude
Very true...I didn't communicate well...
What I should have said was if it is a T, since it is a dead ball, it would be an intentional technical...not just a T. When I stated not necessarily a T that was wrong, since it was a dead ball (after the whistle). I should have said not necessarily a Flagrant Foul, which would be an Intentional Flagrant Foul during a dead ball.

RD

Two points....

There is no reason to call an "intentional technical". The penalty is the exact same as a technical. Contact while the ball is dead that is rule intentional can simply be called a technical (unless flagrant).

There is no such thing as an "Intentional Flagrant Foul". It's either intentional or it is flagrant. Not both.

Also, the term intentional is really a bad term since it may or may not involve actual intent. In this case, I actually like the NBA's method of having flagrant 1 and flagrant 2.

[Hawks Coach]

Damian
I am not sure that I would file charges either, but I don't wear your shirts or run the sidelines in your shoes. I can say taht this behavior must be addressed, and it is extreme to tell all these posters that share this opinion that it is "ridiculous." It may differ from your opinion, but I can tell you that I am on the fence on this. Physical abuse of officials, regardless of how minor, must be addressed in some formal manner. whether it is the courts or through school district/state association, I can't say which is better. I can see both sides. And neither is ridiculous on face value.

Make a real case for the precise corrective action that you recommend rather than throwing bombs into the crowd.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RookieDude
/B]

I should have said not necessarily a Flagrant Foul, which would be an Intentional Flagrant Foul during a dead ball.

[/B][/QUOTE]There is no such thing as an Intentional Flagrant Foul, whether it occurs during a live ball or dead ball.Generally, if the ball's alive, for contact fouls you can have a personal or common foul,an intentional personal foul,or a flagrant personal foul. If the ball is dead, you can have a technical foul, an intentional technical foul, or a flagrant technical foul. There are exceptions when it comes to an airborne shooter. in this case,it's TN's judgement as to what kinda T he wanted to call.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 24th, 2003 at 03:26 PM]

[TriggerMN]

Damian-->

Tell it to the judge. Oh wait, you're not pressing charges!

[RookieDude]

originally posted by CameronRust

There is no such thing as an "Intentional Flagrant Foul". It's either intentional or it is flagrant. Not both.

Sheeesh...am I screwing up my terminology or what?!!!
I meant to say FLAGRANT TECHNICAL FOUL not intentional flagrant foul...sorry.

Contact while the ball is dead that is rule intentional can simply be called a technical (unless flagrant).


Do you agree with the above statement JR?
I give the crossed arms over the head signal (intentional foul signal) when I'm reporting this type of foul, why not?
Otherwise the foul could be mistaken for unsportsmanlike conduct,etc...just a thought.

RD

[Edited by RookieDude on Oct 24th, 2003 at 04:07 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RookieDude
Contact while the ball is dead that is rule intentional can simply be called a technical (unless flagrant).


Do you agree with the above statement JR?
I give the crossed arm over the head signal (intentional foul signal)when I'm reporting this type of foul, why not?
Otherwise the foul could be mistaken for unsportsmanlike conduct...just a thought.

[/B]

Imo, you're both right- and it's not a big deal. An intentional technical foul called for dead-ball contact can be called just a plain ol' normal T, by the terminology in the rule book. You can use either,but there really is no advantage or disadvantage involved in using one over the other when you are reporting. They're basically both the same in all aspects. If you do use the crossed arms, you are still completely correct according to the rules, though. I think that what Camron is saying is that most officials,unless it's flagrant,will just call the T and let it go at that,without bothering to go through the extra signalling,etc. Calling it just a plain ol' T seems to be the standard procedure used in most area,from what I've personally seen.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I think that what Camron is saying is that most officials,unless it's flagrant,will just call the T and let it go at that,without bothering to go through the extra signalling,etc. Calling it just a plain ol' T seems to be the standard procedure used in most area,from what I've personally seen. [/B]

That's exactly what I'm saying!

[Kelvin green]

Here is my two cents

1) pursue criminal charges, let her face the criminal justice system with potential fines and jail time ( she probably wont do jail) but you may not know her history- Has she done this before? is she on probabtion for violence? What is she taeching her kids? She needs to learn her behavior is socially unacceptable

2) Pursue a civil tort case against her for battery, my guess is an attorney would probably take this on contingency. you dont need to pursue much in damages but it outght to be enough to get her attention ...

Of course none of this is intended to be specific legal advice because I want no trouble with the ABA and bar association of your state

[rainmaker]

I was actually out having a life today instead of just cruising the board all day, so I'm checking in kind of late, but I would say at least go through the beginning motions of pressing charges. You might try to get some press coverage, so that other parents learn that this isn't acceptable, and could cause them more trouble than it's worth. This gal may or may not learn her lesson, but going through the motions does help get the message out.

I was "assaulted" once, fairly early on in my career, by an angry coach who followed me out onto the floor after a particular call, and gave me a good chest bump. There's a thread here about it somewhere, I'm not good at finding links. He was forcibly removed from the gym by his assistant and the site manager (this was 6th grade rec league!!), one on each arm, and came back later to apologize. The site manager asked me whether I wanted to press charges, but it looked as though the assistant coach was taking care of the "lesson" aspect of things, so I decided not to. Besides, I still had the whistle in my mouth when he got to me, and he was about six inches shorter than me so I gave him a good one right in the ear. I hope that was enough punishment.

The big difference I see between your situation and mine is that in my case, there was just one angry person, and not a whole crowd, and the guy didn't "get away with it." In your case, where this gal may still today feel justified in her actions, you definitely need to send a message. I just cannot imagine a society that thinks it's even remotely okay to get to the point of physical damage about something as unimportant (in the scheme of things) as 7th grade basketball!

[JeffTheRef]

with the common foul / technical foul thing is when a live ball passes through the basket from above . . . points are scored, and the ball is temporarily dead, until it is at the disposal of the inbounding team. There can be some serious disagreement amongst the players at this point, so guard against too quick a whistle. Usually the ball is coming back into play and their attention to feuding is short-lived . . .

[davidw]

The only way to make something good come out of a situation like this, for us as an community of officials, is to NOT just let it go. When we do that, we in essence, validate the behavior. I agree with those that advocate the pursuit of legal remedies. I believe, the more the public is made aware this type of action is not acceptable and will not be tolerated, the better chances we each have of not encountering similar occurances in the future. Conversely, when we ignore such incidents and let them slide, the more chances we have of encountering them. It is unfortunate, that often the only way we have of getting such messages effectively across to the masses is with the "big stick" of the media and the best opportunity of doing that is by utilizing the legal system available to us.

There may be other valid reasons to pursue remedies, but I feel-at the least-this reason should not be ignored.

Thanks for the post and the opportunity it has given us to express opinions on such an important issue, which too many of us are faced with during our careers.

[NICK]

If you do not do anything about this so-called lady NOW, she will do the same thing to the next official (cause she got away with it first time) and so on til someone does something about it.

[SC Ump]

It is important that you file charges on the woman. I would suggest that you also file charges on the man. You were assaulted by both.

Assault is the threat to do harm. Battery is the act of doing it.

I had a similar incident happen to me. I only filed a report with the association and school, not with law enforcement. Several weeks later a fellow official was attacked at the site, not by the same person, but by the same "group" of folks. Setting limits of acceptable behavior must be done.