Hit's a Foul!

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by tomegun
Blindzebra, me and the rule book are with you.

Having had a fight break out in a men's league a while back, when my partner and I had done everything by the book, prior to the fight, this is a touchy subject for me. We were still accused of letting it get out of control by one of the teams involved.

We were covered because we DID do things by the book. What would have happened had we decided to apply our own penalty instead of the rule?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra

Having had a fight break out in a men's league a while back, when my partner and I had done everything by the book, prior to the fight, this is a touchy subject for me. We were still accused of letting it get out of control by one of the teams involved.

We were covered because we DID do things by the book. What would have happened had we decided to apply our own penalty instead of the rule?

I agree with you that if you had not applied the rule strictly, and the game got out of control, you would have looked bad.

But I think there are more than two possibilities here. It isn't either call by the book and you're covered, or don't call strictly by the book and have a major problem.

The point isn't to call by the book, and the point isn't to only CYA. The reason we're there is to see to it that the team that plays the best that day within the rules, wins the game, and that the safety of the players is optimized. In the case of my game, that's what happened. In the case of david's game, that's what happened.

I think part of my judgment in the situation was what had gone on during the whole game, and during the whole league. The coaches were doing a good job coaching instead of yapping, the girls were playing instead of whining, and the games had been very, very clean. This was an isolated incident, a momentary aberration, a one-shot (so to speak) deal. Any more problem of any kind would have been treated much differently, but really in this case, it worked. In another situation, I'd have been very quick to call flagrant, if necessary. I wasn't being namby-pamby myself.

I do appreciate your point of view, though, and I really appreciate the way you've disagreed with my call without getting testy or offensive. There have been others on this baord in the past who couldn't handle the disgreement, but you've been very polite.

Also, did anyone notice that in the original post I got my A1's and B3's mixed up in one place? It was just pointed out to me a little while ago. Funny that everyone understood the play without correction.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I agree with you that if you had not applied the rule strictly, and the game got out of control, you would have looked bad.

But I think there are more than two possibilities here. It isn't either call by the book and you're covered, or don't call strictly by the book and have a major problem.

The point isn't to call by the book, and the point isn't to only CYA. The reason we're there is to see to it that the team that plays the best that day within the rules, wins the game, and that the safety of the players is optimized. In the case of my game, that's what happened. In the case of david's game, that's what happened.

I think part of my judgment in the situation was what had gone on during the whole game, and during the whole league. The coaches were doing a good job coaching instead of yapping, the girls were playing instead of whining, and the games had been very, very clean. This was an isolated incident, a momentary aberration, a one-shot (so to speak) deal. Any more problem of any kind would have been treated much differently, but really in this case, it worked. In another situation, I'd have been very quick to call flagrant, if necessary. I wasn't being namby-pamby myself.

I do appreciate your point of view, though, and I really appreciate the way you've disagreed with my call without getting testy or offensive. There have been others on this baord in the past who couldn't handle the disgreement, but you've been very polite.

Also, did anyone notice that in the original post I got my A1's and B3's mixed up in one place? It was just pointed out to me a little while ago. Funny that everyone understood the play without correction.

Just to elaborate on your point, if the safety of the players is a top priority wouldn't ejecting a player that attempted to strike another player, be in the best interest of safety?

Just because things did not get out of control in the games in this thread, does not mean that they COULD have turned ugly.

While I see the opposite side of this, I cannot see a benefit to altering the penalty for throwing a punch. I do see several to calling it by the book and tossing the player.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by blindzebra
Just to elaborate on your point, if the safety of the players is a top priority wouldn't ejecting a player that attempted to strike another player, be in the best interest of safety?

Just because things did not get out of control in the games in this thread, does not mean that they COULD have turned ugly.

While I see the opposite side of this, I cannot see a benefit to altering the penalty for throwing a punch. I do see several to calling it by the book and tossing the player.

I see your points very clearly, and they are part of the reason I asked the question. Things COULD have gotten out of control, but they didn't. Ejecting a player who attempts to strike another, would be in the best interest of the safety of the game, but it's obviously not the only thing that works. Something else worked in this particular case.

I have to admit, though, on your side of the argument is that after the game I heard A1 out in the hall, whining about the no-call contact she received. So obviously her attitude wasn't changed. But the coach kept her under control, so for that game, it wasn't a problem.

Still havne't heard back from my evaluator.

[Hawks Coach]

By the book means that you know what happened and it was fighting. I think if rainmaker would have seen a fight, she would have gone flagrant, although I don't know for sure. But that would clearly be by the book.

Instead of a fight, she saw something less, tried to determine what it was. Now, many who weren't there and didn't see it have a fight and a clear rulebook decision. I wasn't there, didn't see it, but it looks like an intentional foul from where I sit, and my view is as good as yours. The book can't be used to back either stance, because it still takes somebody to look at what happened and decide what it was. Then use the book and apply an appropriate penalty.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
By the book means that you know what happened and it was fighting. I think if rainmaker would have seen a fight, she would have gone flagrant, although I don't know for sure. But that would clearly be by the book.

Instead of a fight, she saw something less, tried to determine what it was. Now, many who weren't there and didn't see it have a fight and a clear rulebook decision. I wasn't there, didn't see it, but it looks like an intentional foul from where I sit, and my view is as good as yours. The book can't be used to back either stance, because it still takes somebody to look at what happened and decide what it was. Then use the book and apply an appropriate penalty.

Coach if it was a punch, a slap, or an attempt at either it is fighting.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I think if rainmaker would have seen a fight, she would have gone flagrant, ...

Coach, I'd have CALLED flagrant, not sure I would have GONE...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
The book can't be used to back either stance, because it still takes somebody to look at what happened and decide what it was. Then use the book and apply an appropriate penalty.

Exactly. It's up to the official on the spot to use their own judgement as to whether that particular act was worthy of being called "flagrant" and warranted an ejection. If they didn't feel that the act was worthy of being called a "fight", or had any doubts at all that a "flagrant" act was committed, then obviously they aren't gonna call a flagrant foul on the play.

Intentional fouls, flagrant fouls, player control fouls, unsporting technical fouls, etc.,etc.- or whether you're even gonna make a call in the first place- those are all judgement calls by the official.

[Hawks Coach]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Coach, I'd have CALLED flagrant, not sure I would have GONE...

Cute. Would you have gone postal if you had seen a flagrant?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Exactly. It's up to the official on the spot to use their own judgement as to whether that particular act was worthy of being called "flagrant" and warranted an ejection. If they didn't feel that the act was worthy of being called a "fight", or had any doubts at all that a "flagrant" act was committed, then obviously they aren't gonna call a flagrant foul on the play.

Intentional fouls, flagrant fouls, player control fouls, unsporting technical fouls, etc.,etc.- or whether you're even gonna make a call in the first place- those are all judgement calls by the official.

Fine, then why ask the question in the first place? Why have this forum?

We all come here to share ideas that are based on SOMEONE ELSE BEING THERE! So unless Juulie has some video she'd like to share we have to go by what she described, and what I read was a deliberate attempt at vengence and A1 hit B3. She called a common foul and the coach removed the player. In hindsite she said she probably should have called it flagrant.

The whole intentional foul idea entered later as a middle ground, bail out from calling a flagrant foul.

[Hawks Coach]

I don't agree that the intentional is a bail-out. If it is clearly flagrant, call it such. I have no problem with that concept. I see uncertainty in this situation, and flagrant better be a certainty typoe of call.

I have a player with a temper, and remove her from games when necessary. We talk about it, she has gotten much better, but her first reaction is to lash out when "bad stuff" happens. I have pulled her three times in the past three weekends, never once has she even gotten an intentional foul called. Usually she is po'd because the ball got stolen or she got hammered on a no-call when taking a lay-up. But she gets a mean look and chases down the player that ends up with the ball. And she will get the ball, but she always takes a piece of player too.

Last weekend, an official that was watching told the on-court crew they should have had an intentional. I benched her for the rest of the half. She hamnmered A1, who had stolen the ball from her, coming hard down on her upper body as she took a lay-up. No way she was playing just the ball. Player went down hard, common foul. In my mind, that foul needs a flagrant long before the one juulie posted on, and it isn't even an INT.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
I don't agree that the intentional is a bail-out. If it is clearly flagrant, call it such. I have no problem with that concept. I see uncertainty in this situation, and flagrant better be a certainty typoe of call.

I have a player with a temper, and remove her from games when necessary. We talk about it, she has gotten much better, but her first reaction is to lash out when "bad stuff" happens. I have pulled her three times in the past three weekends, never once has she even gotten an intentional foul called. Usually she is po'd because the ball got stolen or she got hammered on a no-call when taking a lay-up. But she gets a mean look and chases down the player that ends up with the ball. And she will get the ball, but she always takes a piece of player too.

Last weekend, an official that was watching told the on-court crew they should have had an intentional. I benched her for the rest of the half. She hamnmered A1, who had stolen the ball from her, coming hard down on her upper body as she took a lay-up. No way she was playing just the ball. Player went down hard, common foul. In my mind, that foul needs a flagrant long before the one juulie posted on, and it isn't even an INT.

I'm not saying that more intentional fouls should not be called. I'm saying, and I can't say it any more clearly, if a player strikes another player or attempts to strike another player that player has committed a flagrant foul.

It does not matter if a common foul may have had more contact. You throw a punch and you are gone.

Like I said earlier you can have a common foul, an intentional foul, or a flagrant on that layup coach and the official has to judge which kind of foul occured. There is no such distinction on a punch. Punch = fight = ejection.

[Adam]

From the original play:
A1 stumbles to regain her balance, and is standing about 8 feet from B3, looking at her leg and whining about getting bumped. A1 meantime, is slowly recovering her wits, finally gets up and starts to head up (down?) the floor. As she runs past A1, A1 reaches out and hits her. It was calculated, cold-blooded vengeance. Except that it was so poorly aimed and so incredibly lame, I'm not sure B3 even knew it happened. I whistled it dead, and called.....

Assuming it's B3 who recovers her wits I thought we could reread this. A1 "reaches out and hits" in "calculated, cold-blooded vengeance." Has anyone else here seen a hard foul (or attempted hard foul) that would not qualify as a fight but would qualify as calculated vengeance?
I've seen it a few times, whether the vengeance is personal (going after a specific player) or general (going after whoever has the ball or happens to be near) it doesn't necessarily call for a flagrant.
I see Juulie's post here as indicative of her reasoning. It was obviously intentional, and it was obviously not related to the play. She was just mad she got touched by an opponent, and tried to hit an opponent. Nothing about a "punch" or "slap" here (although "slap" doesn't necessarily warrant a flagrant either.)
Frankly, unless the "punch" is obvious, I'm not whistling it. By Juulie's post, it's far from obvious.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra

[/B]

Fine, then why ask the question in the first place? Why have this forum?

[/B][/QUOTE]So we can all give our OWN opinion. Mine happens to differ completely from your's,obviously.

[tomegun]

Juulie, can you clarify what you meant by "As she runs past A1, A1 reaches out and hits her. It was calculated, cold-blooded vengeance."

You are the only one that was there and you are the only one that can describe what was done.

Was the ball on the other end of the court away from the players?

Could what have happened be considered swing of the arms while running and hit the opponent?

Did she pull back and extend her arm to deliberately make a slapping/hitting contact with the opponent?

Could the player have taken a different path to avoid getting that close to the other player?

It seems like the different opinions could be resolved, reach common ground or at least come within shouting distance once it is clarified.
Jurassic/coach, do you think a flagrant and ejection should happen if something occurs that falls under the definition of fighting or is that conditional based on the outcome of the act and/or the climate of the game?
Blindzebra, do you think that a fighting act should be penalized no matter what?
I think (hope) we can all agree that if this isn't an act that would be considered fighting the player should remain in the game right?