It seems like everyone has an opinion about this. Nothing wrong with that. If the situation is handled according to the letter of the law the official has the book backing them up. Also, if the game continues to go down hill one of my sayings would be useful "We can find 10 players that want to play tonight." If the blank hits the fan and the book has it recorded that I had already ejected player(s) for this kind of behavior then I feel confident about the job I did. On the other hand if the blank hits the fan and nothing was done prior then I wouldn't feel so confident. Also, currently a lot of these games are on tape. Tape does not lie! Calling a swing an intentional on tape will speak for itself.

Let me try again, I was rambling before while formulating this.

Writers block :)

I think what you are getting at is,if you call it by the book as flagant, you are covered. If you take any other path, it may come back to bite you.

Coach, If I'm giving out the $1000 prize for best response...I'm gonna have to ask you to take out the above statement.

While most of what you stated is right on, IMO, whether or not a player "knows" he/she was almost hit with a "swing", by an opponent, should have no consequences in the officials call.

i.e. A1 takes a sissy swing at B1 from behind...B1 felt the "breeze" but nothing else....whatta ya got?

Yeah but the writer's block was for my next poetic statement. :D

This is the best thing said on this thread.

Not because of what was said, but because it was a coach who said it!

If we could only get the other 99% of coaches and 100% of fans to understand that high school, college, and NBA rules can and do differ!

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.

[/B][/QUOTE]Do you trust your evaluator, Juulie? If you know who the evaluator on that game was, or if you can find out, give him/her a call. See if they remember the play, and ask him/her for their take on that particular call. If they don't remember the foul, you can rest assured that it sureashell wasn't of the flagrant variety. Let us know what you find out, if anything.

I think one thing we're forgetting here is the situation. We're talking about a blowout where B1 has her frustration growing all game long. I've seen it happen, and the "intentional" foul worked well to stop any potential escalation. B was losing and frustrated, and A likely was not. Most times, the players just want a foul called, and they really only start escalating things if we don't call anything.
My guess is that if Juulie's initial reaction was for an intentional foul, then the "savage or violent" nature of the swing wasn't evident. Juulie, I'd be curious to find out what your evaluator thought of the play if you can find out.

I may have an intentional if it is a "sissy swing" - not sure what that really is though, so I don't really know for sure what I have! If it is what I envision, then I wouldn't be certain that it is intended to injure or hurt the opponent, I am sure it isn't enough to accomplish that goal if that was the goal, and I am sure it was intended. This is how I come up with an intentional in this situation - we have enough to see that something was intended, not sure what it was. So split the difference.

Obviously others disagree, but we have what is characterized as not only poorly aimed, but lame. So it has intent, but intent for what is the key question. Rainmaker had a common foul, it seems that it wasn't a dead-on obvious intentional. Upon further review she thinks intentional, and she gets hit with multiple calls for the flagrant. I go with her instinct - she was there.

Fighting is not always a T.
 

Camron,
This really is not true. Everyone who reads this board needs to know or be made aware that fighting is not always a T. Even though 10-3-9 (you accidently cited 10-3-10) in the rules book says, "...Be charged with fighting."

I would refer you to 4-19-4 for the definition of a flagrant foul, and ...

If you check the case book, you will see that fighting during a dead ball is a flagrant technical foul, while fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul. Look specifically at 10.4.4 Situation A for the live ball ruling, and 10.4.4 Situation B for the dead ball ruling.

Additionally, if you have the Simplified and Illustrated book you can look at 4-19-7a (flagrant personal) and 4-19-7b (flagrant technical) on pages 30 and 31 for the live ball and dead ball rulings, respectively.

From Rainmaker's description this happened off-ball which means there is a good chance the evaluator didn't see it at all. So, to say that since the evaluator didn't say anything about it the foul call was appropriate isn't really true. Maybe, maybe not.
If a player swings to strike another player, regardless of the game situation, regardless of 1 evaluator or 100 evaluators there is only one thing to do to make sure we are covered. If this happens 1000 times and it is called a foul or intentional 999 times maybe everything after that is OK. However that one time something gets worse it could be career ending.
If the official, Rainmaker in this case, deems this to be an intentional swing the rule book supports ejecting the player. Calling a swing for the purpose of retaliation, frustration or to just strike out at an opponent a personal foul or intentional foul is not supported by the rule book. This is regardless of the result of the action.
Personally, if I think it is a swing I want to consistently apply the rules. You never know who or what is watching you. :)

Unbelievable. The day that I have to throw a ballplayer out of a game just to make sure that my a$$ is covered is the day that I hang my whistle up. And I also think that I might be inclined to follow the opinion of a trained evaluator who actually SAW the game over the OPINION of someone who didn't SEE the game.

It is always up to the official on the spot to make up their mind whether an act deserves disqualification or not. If there's any doubt at all- as Rainmaker certainly had- then you shouldn't be throwing players out. Especially just to cover your butt!

Jurassic, I didn't get the impression that Rainmaker had any doubt about the act or the intent. The doubt was what we, as officials, should/would do. Just because an evaluator SAW the game does not mean the evaluator SAW this play. Rainmaker did not say it was a "trained" evaluator. What is a "trained" evaluator anyway?
There is a reason why we do something and a reason why we don't do something. The reason(s) for not ejecting this player have been explored and I can understand them although I don't totally agree (since I wasn't there with the whistle in my mouth it is hard to say one way or the other for sure). Nobody has yet pointed out a rule that fits this situation other than a flagrant with ejection. On the other hand if we explore the reasons to eject this player it fits nicely into a rule in the rule book and the only possible debate would be whether it was an attempted/connected punch/swing. From the description given it was premeditated and the intent was to swing and make contact.
Whether the verbage "cover your a$$" is used or not, officiating today is ultra-competitive and situations like this can make a difference. Maybe that "day" has come. For various reasons (scholarships, contracts, shoe deals, etc.) this sport is high-stakes and it starts to become this at lower levels. Everything we do or don't do is scrutinized a lot. I don't know if Rainmaker is a camper but if she is I know some of the evaluators on the West coast. They will jump on this like white on rice and the whole time other campers on the side will be happy that the call wasn't made. This is the reality of officiating today whether we like it or not. Maybe it isn't that important to Rainmaker or she doesn't have those aspirations. I just don't see this as a call that is all that much different from other tough calls. This is a situation I would love to have in a game at a camp this summer. I think we all have read different reasons for making different calls and we will make that decision based on our own interpretation of what we feel the correct call is in addition to advice from our fellow officials/mentors.

I don't agree with that, or you, at all. I'm an evaluator- have been for years. I would never tell an official that I was evaluating to "make sure we are covered"- as in your own words. If there is any doubt at all whether a foul was flagrant or not, then I'm keeping the player in the game, and I'd personally recommend to other officials that I'm evaluating that they do the same. And, to be quite honest, I've never met any other evaluators that would advocate anything different than that. That doesn't say that you might have met some though. Of course, this is all still just MY opinion, which certainly doesn't make it gospel. Guess we just haveta agree to disagree on this one, Tom.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zebraman

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Quote: Just because A1 punches like a girl does not mean her actions did not meet the definition of a "violent or savage nature." Since the ball was live, A1 has committed a flagrant personal foul. MTD, Sr. This is a decision the ref that is working the particular game has to make. Based on what Rainmaker described, I think intentional might have applied rather than flagrant. This falls under the "I'd have to be there" category. Not all reactionary fouls mandate flagrant. Z

I understand the point you are making and agree with you that it falls under the "I'd have to be there" category. My intent was to say that just because the punch was not very hard does not mean it does not meet the definition of a flagrant foul.

MTD, Sr.

To answer you last question. If the ball is live when A1 swings at B1 from behind: (1) And A1's swing misses B1, A1 is charged with a flagrant technical foul; and (2) If A1's swing makes contact with B1 then the foul is a flagrant personal foul.

MTD, Sr.