Hit's a Foul!

[Adam]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Because it's during a live ball and it's a contact foul. Therefore, it's a personal foul.

BTW, how is it "a more serious lesson," to call a T than an intentional?

Because you don't get ejected with 2 intentional fouls.

I realize the contact hurts the T argument, I was just wondering if you couldn't "rule" that the unsporting act happened before the contact and that the now dead ball contact didn't warrant an additional call. I'm just thinking out loud here, since I probably (not seeing it, my response always has to be qualified) would have ruled an intentional and left it at that.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Because you don't get ejected with 2 intentional fouls.

I realize the contact hurts the T argument, I was just wondering if you couldn't "rule" that the unsporting act happened before the contact and that the now dead ball contact didn't warrant an additional call. I'm just thinking out loud here, since I probably (not seeing it, my response always has to be qualified) would have ruled an intentional and left it at that.

I have a better question. Why is there a concern to "teach a lesson", serious or not? You hear this type of thing a lot from officials so I'm not just picking on you, but where in the rulebook does it say our job is to teach a lesson?

Maybe it's just me but I believe it's the coach's job to teach lessons on the basketball court.

No?

[tomegun]

Dan is right, we don't have to teach a lesson. Maybe we need a better description but from reading the post this isn't an unsporting act. She hit the girl intentionally and that is covered under the rules as fighting. Slamming the ball to the floor is an unsporting act. This sounds like a non-basktball play. Under NF whether contact is made or not it is fighting and there is a rule/penalty to back this up.

[Adam]

Maybe "teaching a lesson" isn't the correct terminology, and that's my fault. I agree that, especially at the varsity level indicated by Juulie's original post, our job is not to teach lessons. It sounds like the coach in question did a fine job of teaching a lesson even with a common foul. Kudos to the coach for recognizing a volatile situation and taking proactive measures; not all coaches at the bottom end of a blow out would see it.
My thoughts were more along the lines of finding a "punishment" that "fits the crime." From Juulie's description, the play fits somewhere between intentional and flagrant and I'm merely exploring the option of a technical.

[rockyroad]

Juulie, on a philosophical level I can agree with calling an Intentional in this case, but I know we have discussed the "5 minutes later" principle before - using that thinking, I believe you need to toss the kid...look at the T'wolves/Kings situation - no way the ref standing right there did not see the first elbow from Peeler that laid Garnett out. Should have called something right there, but didn't and we have retaliation and crap next trip down the court.In your play, the girl attempted to hit (punch, slap, whatever) the other player - should be a flagrant... it was nice that the coach pulled her out, but the choice shouldn't have been his...

[Camron Rust]

I'm left wondering, given the description of the action, if it was an attempt to actually hit the opponent or more of a frutrated/irritated fling of the arm in her general direction. Sort of a bump rather than a punch.

In any case, I think an intentional foul would be the minimum. If it wasn't violent or savage, I don't think a flagrant personal is an option.

If you considered it fighting though, it's a T (10-3-10) no matter if there is contact or not (4-18-1) and it's also flagrant (4-18).

From what I've heard, I'd probably go with the intentional and watch her like a hawk.

[lrpalmer3]

Rulebook says flagrant fouls are of a violent nature, not violent result. Doesn't matter what the result was, what was the nature of the action? The rulebook even says that it can be a noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct.

Would I say that you were wrong, no. But any time I see a violent "natured" act, SEE YA!!!!

[Hawks Coach]

Judging from the diescription, I think intentional does the job. You don't see a lot of intentionals, so it stands out as a call much more than the common foul. The intentional makes it clear to both teams, coaches, and particularly the offending player, that you saw what happened and you won't tolerate it, and you are going to penalize it if it occurs. I think that is sufficient to keep things from escalating.

Comparisons to the Twolves game are completely inappropriate here - the rules on flagrant and intentional fouls are very different in the NBA, as is the sophistication and rules knowledge of the players. At this level, I don't think there are many players that know the difference between an intentional and a flagrant. But they will take notice when you call the intentional, and the offended team will appreciate it.

I think the flagrant is a little much, especially since you didn't start out with so much as an intentional foul. If there was so little contact that the player being fouled may not have even known it, I think you can consider it sufficient to give the intentional.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Judging from the diescription, I think intentional does the job. You don't see a lot of intentionals, so it stands out as a call much more than the common foul. The intentional makes it clear to both teams, coaches, and particularly the offending player, that you saw what happened and you won't tolerate it, and you are going to penalize it if it occurs. I think that is sufficient to keep things from escalating.

Comparisons to the Twolves game are completely inappropriate here - the rules on flagrant and intentional fouls are very different in the NBA, as is the sophistication and rules knowledge of the players. At this level, I don't think there are many players that know the difference between an intentional and a flagrant. But they will take notice when you call the intentional, and the offended team will appreciate it.

I think the flagrant is a little much, especially since you didn't start out with so much as an intentional foul. If there was so little contact that the player being fouled may not have even known it, I think you can consider it sufficient to give the intentional.

Okay, let's say you call it intentional and B was aware she got hit. Five minutes go by and she gets a chance to even the score and does, but she lays out the other player.
Are we going to call this one an intentional foul and not flagrant?

You have to penalize the INTENT of the act, reguardless of the outcome of the act.

[tomegun]

Great point blindzebra. Also, what if the coach saw this whole play and he knows you saw the whole play? There are many ifs we could go through. If the intent is to hit, the player must sit!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by tomegun
Great point blindzebra. Also, what if the coach saw this whole play and he knows you saw the whole play? There are many ifs we could go through. If the intent is to hit, the player must sit!

Tom -- pretty good, but you need to use a little bit of formatting to really add punch:


If the intent was to hit
The player must sit!!


See how classy that looks?


Everyone else, Yea, by rule, it was flagrant. I posted this, knowing that I'd hear the range of opinions. I still think I should have gone with intentional. If I'd have thought of it, that's what I'd have done. And I really can't justify it -- except that the situation didn't escalate, even though it could have. The coach dealt with it, and that was the end. I know on paper that doesn't add up to a good enough reason, and I'm not a "trust your instinct" kinda gal. I don't understand my own reaction here, I just posted to sort of see what the reasons were. And I appreciate the different responses.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by tomegun
Great point blindzebra. Also, what if the coach saw this whole play and he knows you saw the whole play? There are many ifs we could go through. If the intent is to hit, the player must sit!

Did you write for Johnnie Cochran?

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Okay, let's say you call it intentional and B was aware she got hit. Five minutes go by and she gets a chance to even the score and does, but she lays out the other player.
Are we going to call this one an intentional foul and not flagrant?

You have to penalize the INTENT of the act, reguardless of the outcome of the act. [/B]

And what if you hit them with the flagrant and B decides to even the score with someone else. and what if B's mom starts a fight in the stands. What if, what if, what if.

This play doesn't at all from rainmaker's description sound like the type of thing that would cause B to react in an overly adverse manner. B may be aware she got hit, but rainmaker said that it was questionable. So even if B knows it happened, she didn't get nailed in such a way as to hurt her and make her want to retaliate.

I am suggesting that the intentional is viewed by players at this level as a pretty severe penalty. So the majority of Bs out there will feel that justice has been done - they got two shots and the ball, A got a foul. If somebody out there feels it wasn't enough and decides to take more action, they can pay for that choice. But this act doesn't sound like a flagrant to me, and I don't think that a B that didn't feel (or barely felt) the contact is going to be looking for some more retribution.

I see much worse fouls on breakaway layups that you can't even get an intentional on, and they cause a lot of games to erode into ugly stuff. Start by calling a simple INT on some of those and you could keep some games under better control.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I am suggesting that the intentional is viewed by players at this level as a pretty severe penalty. So the majority of Bs out there will feel that justice has been done - they got two shots and the ball, A got a foul. If somebody out there feels it wasn't enough and decides to take more action, they can pay for that choice. But this act doesn't sound like a flagrant to me, and I don't think that a B that didn't feel (or barely felt) the contact is going to be looking for some more retribution.

I choose, Hawks' Coach, for $1000!!!

Seriously, Hawks, this is a good description of how I should have thought about it, and I think you have summed up exactly the way it could have been best handled. Thanks.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach

And what if you hit them with the flagrant and B decides to even the score with someone else. and what if B's mom starts a fight in the stands. What if, what if, what if.

This play doesn't at all from rainmaker's description sound like the type of thing that would cause B to react in an overly adverse manner. B may be aware she got hit, but rainmaker said that it was questionable. So even if B knows it happened, she didn't get nailed in such a way as to hurt her and make her want to retaliate.

I am suggesting that the intentional is viewed by players at this level as a pretty severe penalty. So the majority of Bs out there will feel that justice has been done - they got two shots and the ball, A got a foul. If somebody out there feels it wasn't enough and decides to take more action, they can pay for that choice. But this act doesn't sound like a flagrant to me, and I don't think that a B that didn't feel (or barely felt) the contact is going to be looking for some more retribution.

I see much worse fouls on breakaway layups that you can't even get an intentional on, and they cause a lot of games to erode into ugly stuff. Start by calling a simple INT on some of those and you could keep some games under better control. [/B]

It is an apple and orange comparison coach. A foul on a layup can be common, intentional, or flagrant. A punch, slap, or attempted swing IS flagrant by rule.

I've worked enough games to recognize plays that will escalate things and I have, and do, call intentional fouls in those situations.

By making a statement about a "WORSE" foul, I'd think you'd be all for calling the play for what it was, an attempt to strike another player in anger.