Hit's a Foul!

[mick]

So..., it seems that if a tree falls in the forest and no body is around to hear it fall, there may, or may not, be a sound, depending upon in whose hardwood the tree was standing, assuming of course, that the tree was clearly seen falling.
mick

---

It would seem that there is a polite difference between a tree falling in the woods and a tree just being in the woods in the fall.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Great idea. I do know who it was, and I'll check into it.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by tomegun
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. .

I feel quite confident that the evaluator wasn't watching the ball. She is one of the best evals in the area, and she ks very good at seeing what happens on the floor, and seeing whether the refs saw what happened on the floor. In fact, it hadn't occurred to me to even ask if she saw it, until the question came up here on the board. My only question would be whether she was looking away to write something down, or answering a question for another ref (it was a camp-type setting), or talking to another evaluator. As Jurassic suggested, I'll contact her, and see what she says. It may take a day or two.

[Adam]

Originally posted by mick
So..., it seems that if a tree falls in the forest and no body is around to hear it fall, there may, or may not, be a sound, depending upon in whose hardwood the tree was standing, assuming of course, that the tree was clearly seen falling.
mick

---

It would seem that there is a polite difference between a tree falling in the woods and a tree just being in the woods in the fall.

Yes, but Mick, we need to know if the tree violated its cylinder of verticality when it fell and displaced the shrubs.

[Hawks Coach]

Also, what if it falls on a limb that has broken off from the main tree trunk, which has maintained verticality? What rights does dead wood have?

And what about trees that have a natural lean - is the lean considered to establish a cylinder of semi-verticality with a subtle horzontal component?

Do forest fires result in flagrant fouls and subsequent ejection of the offending flames? Or are they considered incidental contact?

Answers, we need answers!!!

[Dan_ref]

This thread is really starting to branch out now.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref


This thread is really starting to branch out now.

I wood agree.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
[/B]

Yes, but Mick, we need to know if the tree violated its cylinder of verticality when it fell and displaced the shrubs.
[/B][/QUOTE]I believe that, in this case, the tree violated the pine cone of verticality.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I wood agree.

Son of a Beech!

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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.

The case you've mentioned does indeed say that. What we have is the case book contradicting the rule book since 10-4-9 quite clearly states that fighting is a T (with no qualification on live/dead ball). I'll accept that the case book is probably the right thing to do in spite of the rule book.

Even still, it's not as simple as live ball = personal and dead ball = technical.

Fighting during a live ball is still not neccesarily a flagrant personal. When, during a live ball, A1 throws a punch that doesn't land, it is still fighting. However, since there is no contact, it can't be personal...this one is a T.

I would also assert that you could have a swing that immediately kills the ball followed by contact (perhaps on a 2nd swing). If you catch the first swing, it's a T since its called before contact occurs.

[davidw]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

The case you've mentioned does indeed say that. What we have is the case book contradicting the rule book since 10-4-9 quite clearly states that fighting is a T (with no qualification on live/dead ball). I'll accept that the case book is probably the right thing to do in spite of the rule book.

Even still, it's not as simple as live ball = personal and dead ball = technical.

Fighting during a live ball is still not neccesarily a flagrant personal. When, during a live ball, A1 throws a punch that doesn't land, it is still fighting. However, since there is no contact, it can't be personal...this one is a T.

I would also assert that you could have a swing that immediately kills the ball followed by contact (perhaps on a 2nd swing). If you catch the first swing, it's a T since its called before contact occurs.

Cameron, Juulie and others,

Cameron I'm very much 'leaning' (continuing the tree metaphor--a little) towards your analysis. Juulie, thanks for the post; may I offer a similar but in some ways different sitch? Others, I would hope for some feedback as well.

Late this past season, A1 (point guard) near end of 2nd Q. bringing ball up near mid-court and far sideline with lots of pressure from B1 & 2. A1 is not liking pressure looking to me for help (wanting me to call a foul) no foul, good defense. B1 steals ball and heads towards his basket, A1 lashes out forcibly with elbow and forearm with hand in fist position towards B2 still near him, no contact. Tweet! Signal 'T'.

Snaqwell, here is where I depart from you a bit. I too, like Juulie, did not want to toss the kid. I chose to label his action 'unsporting' and meriting the technical without the 'flagrant' attached. Could have--maybe should have gone with the flagrant, but made the judgement at the time to do as already stated. Coach did pull the kid not bringing him back till late in 3rd Q. Had coach not pulled player, I was prepared to speak to coach, strongly suggesting he take control, but coach was on top of it. No more problems from A1 rest of game.

I learned later A1 has had a slight reputation for being a little undisciplined and a tendency to lose his temper at times (neither my partner nor I had this info going into the game). Had same team a couple of weeks later in play-offs. Obviously, I had my eye on A1. No problems with A1 the whole game. In fact turned out to be a great game.

According to A1's actions my call does not appear to be supported by the book, but I still feel I made the right call. Since no contact, I didn't have the option of calling intentional--no bail out there. A1's action probably constituted 'fighting', but since no contact I had to go with the T and chose the 'unsporting' route not the flagrant. Was I totally off base on this one?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by davidw

Cameron, Juulie and others,

Cameron I'm very much 'leaning' (continuing the tree metaphor--a little) towards your analysis. Juulie, thanks for the post; may I offer a similar but in some ways different sitch? Others, I would hope for some feedback as well.

Late this past season, A1 (point guard) near end of 2nd Q. bringing ball up near mid-court and far sideline with lots of pressure from B1 & 2. A1 is not liking pressure looking to me for help (wanting me to call a foul) no foul, good defense. B1 steals ball and heads towards his basket, A1 lashes out forcibly with elbow and forearm with hand in fist position towards B2 still near him, no contact. Tweet! Signal 'T'.

Snaqwell, here is where I depart from you a bit. I too, like Juulie, did not want to toss the kid. I chose to label his action 'unsporting' and meriting the technical without the 'flagrant' attached. Could have--maybe should have gone with the flagrant, but made the judgement at the time to do as already stated. Coach did pull the kid not bringing him back till late in 3rd Q. Had coach not pulled player, I was prepared to speak to coach, strongly suggesting he take control, but coach was on top of it. No more problems from A1 rest of game.

I learned later A1 has had a slight reputation for being a little undisciplined and a tendency to lose his temper at times (neither my partner nor I had this info going into the game). Had same team a couple of weeks later in play-offs. Obviously, I had my eye on A1. No problems with A1 the whole game. In fact turned out to be a great game.

According to A1's actions my call does not appear to be supported by the book, but I still feel I made the right call. Since no contact, I didn't have the option of calling intentional--no bail out there. A1's action probably constituted 'fighting', but since no contact I had to go with the T and chose the 'unsporting' route not the flagrant. Was I totally off base on this one?

If the kid had a reputation of losing his temper, as you found out later, do you really think you helped the kid by letting him slide?

I honestly am surprised that I'm in the minority here, if you throw a punch you are gone. Period.

It does not matter if it was a "girly-hit" or a miss it is still fighting, and they should be ejected.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by davidw
[/B]

B1 steals ball and heads towards his basket, A1 lashes out forcibly with elbow and forearm with hand in fist position towards B2 still near him, no contact. Tweet! Signal 'T'.

According to A1's actions my call does not appear to be supported by the book, but I still feel I made the right call. Since no contact, I didn't have the option of calling intentional--no bail out there. A1's action probably constituted 'fighting', but since no contact I had to go with the T and chose the 'unsporting' route not the flagrant. Was I totally off base on this one?

[/B][/QUOTE]A1 committed an unsporting act. Whether that unsporting act was of the flagrant variety or not should be up to the judgement of the official calling it. It was your opinion that this act wasn't of the flagrant variety. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing the matter with just calling an ordinary T in this case then. You felt, and still feel that you made the right call to fit the situation.It obviously worked for you. That's good enough for me. If you aren't 100% sure in your own mind that A1's actions warranted an ejection, then I don't think that you should EVER call the foul flagrant. Jmo.

[Rickref]

A1 committed an unsporting act. Whether that unsporting act was of the flagrant variety or not should be up to the judgement of the official calling it. It was your opinion that this act wasn't of the flagrant variety. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing the matter with just calling an ordinary T in this case then. You felt, and still feel that you made the right call to fit the situation.It obviously worked for you. That's good enough for me. If you aren't 100% sure in your own mind that A1's actions warranted an ejection, then I don't think that you should EVER call the foul flagrant. Jmo.

I agree with this line of thinking. Although it's probably not correct by the book, its what works best for the situation. Only a handful of folks are even going to question whether it was appropriately done by the book, as witnessed by this discussion, and most can at least see why you took the route you did. Imo

[tomegun]

Blindzebra, me and the rule book are with you.