Girls' low level varsity. Team A ahead by quite a bit. Team B has the ball just above their own 3-point line. Ball is passed in but receiver, B2, looks away at the wrong moment. A1 steps up to intercept. B3 sees what's happening, jumps to tip the ball, lands wrong, falls, and just as she's hitting the floor, she sort of bumps A1 who stumbles, but gets the ball and passes it downcourt for a fast break.

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....

.... a foul. Just a plain old personal foul. This wasn't a conscious decision, it just sort of happened. Coach removed player immediately. I'm not sure whether she played again or not, I don't remember.

Thinking back, I suppose it should have been a flagrant, but it was such a sissy-hit, so namby-pamby, I still can't feel I goofed. I already know ahead of time the breadth of responses I'll get here, but I'm gonna ask anyway, and see if there's anything that makes me change my mind.

Just for the record, I was being evaluated, and the evaluator didn't say anything about the call either for or against.

The question is, did I kick it?

[Edited by rainmaker on May 17th, 2004 at 11:54 PM]

You have a case of outcome versus intent. How would you feel if instead of a sissy hit, it was a vicious swing and a miss? The intent was the same, so the penalty needs to be the same too.

Rainmaker,

I sense that you feel that it was somewhere between a regular foul and a flagrant foul. Maybe an intentional foul would apply. A fairly serious penalty, but A1 stays in the game? Just another option.

Z

I got confused as to who was hitting whom when trying to follow your A1s and B3s, but that really doesn't matter since my general advice would be the same. Whenever you think an act is:

You need to call the flagrant and get rid of that player. You will be a better official for it, and the game will be better for it, too.
There is no place for that in high school sports.

That one works for me. The book definition of a flagrant foul says that it must be of a "violent or savage nature". Obviously that didn't occur in this case. Calling an intentional foul sends a message to the player that you saw the retaliation, and you're not gonna let her get away with an act like that. Easy one to explain to the evaluator, too, if s/he asks. Justifying a flagrant foul, by rule, to the evaluator where no violent contact was involved would be a real toughie if you were asked.

Rule 4-18. Fighting. Flagrant foul. "an attempt to strike......"

She didn't get her money's worth but should be ejected just the same.

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung...smiley-013.gif

Your foul call got her attention.
No apparent disadvantage.
Initial intent was clear, but final result wasn't.

Maybe A1 changed her mind just before she struck out, ...just before contact.

Did she use a fist, open hand, forearm?

Obviously, an "had to be there" call.
mick

My inclination, based on how your described it, would be to consider it fighting under rule 4-18...call a flagrant foul...and disqualify the culprit. Specifically because you described it as "calculated, cold-blooded vengeance." It wouldn't matter that it missed or wasn't good form. It seems it was clearly "an attempt to strike, punch..."

Now, how you define "strike" could change from time to time. For example, last year in a varsity game, my son and a player from the other team got tangled up as they turned to run to the other end. My son extended both arms (which were entangled with the other players) and "pushed" the other player away from him. Ref. blows whistle -- Intentional Foul. I thought good call. I guess someone could have said it should be flagrant.

Yea, I agree. Didn't occur to me at the time. I think intentional would have been the best compromise. Gotta figure out what pocket in the tool box to put that in so that the next time I notice it

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.

[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

Juulie - as we both know, a "sissy-hit, so namby-pamby" could easily be as flagrant as that girl could hit. Certainly there was intent to injure, even if the hit didn't hurt. That's why we even call flagrants if a swing is taken but misses.

Under NF rules, her action was flagrant in my book.

Perhaps it's time the NF adopted the NBA rule about having two different levels of flagrant fouls. One results in ejection, the other doesn't. Then we wouldn't have to make "intentional" fouls take the place of lower level flagrants just because we make a subjective decision that the foul didn't warrant ejection.

I think you handled it correctly. Could it be that based on her behavior up until that point you gave A1 the benefit of the doubt? Anyway you went with your instincts and it obviously worked. Late in a blow out it seems the best idea is to find & take the path of least resistance. If the game sitch was tenser then maybe you need to come down harder. And since your evaluator didn't mention it I guess he agreed with your call.

Why not just go straight to the T for unsporting conduct? She's not ejected, but get's a more serious lesson than an intentional.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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!!!!

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.

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! :D

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!! :D


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.

Did you write for Johnnie Cochran?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hacking a limb.
 

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
<HR> 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.

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.

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.

Re: Hacking a limb.
 

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

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!!!

This thread is really starting to branch out now.

I wood agree.

Re: Re: Hacking a limb.
 

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.

Son of a Beech!

Re: Fighting is not always a T.
 

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.

Re: Re: Fighting is not always a T.
 

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?

Re: Re: Re: Fighting is not always a T.
 

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.

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.

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

Blindzebra, me and the rule book are with you. :D

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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."

I'm agreeing with BlindZebra on this. I don't think there is any other reasonable choice if a player takes a swing.

I know this may be apples and oranges, or even bananas...but, what if...
1. A player curses after an official's call, what does he or she get? A "T"?
2. A player takes a swing at an official...hit or miss...what do they get?

I think I've been very clear where I stand, if a player attempts to strike another player they get tossed.

Re: Re: Fighting is not always a T.
 

Correct. No contact = cannot be a personal foul. I forgot about this one, but MTD didn't. He pointed it out a few posts earlier. Good caveat, MTD!

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

I asked the question, as I said at the beginning, to see if anyone said anything that changed my mind about what I did. My instinct said it wasn't flagrant, my book-learning mind said it was. I debated for a fraction of a second, and decided not to call it flagrant. I posted this to see where the discussion led, and whether or not I might be convinced of something different. It has been very helpful to examine all the different angles, and see the different points of view.

I notice two things in the last page or two. First, I wouldn't say A1 threw a punch. She had an open, flat hand, and it flapped at the wrist as she was reaching. She didn't exactly swing her arm, it was more of a reaching out. Perhaps those weak actions were why I decided against flagrant.

The other thing I notice is that the whole description of "anyone throws a punch, he's gone" doesn't apply to my situation, because these are girls. Yea, I know girls do fight, and I've tossed two for it over my five years. But the way girls fight is usually different from boys, and doesn't usually involve throwing punches. This girl reached out to sort of slap at someone, but she definitely didn't throw a punch. It was calculated, but I think I should not have said cold-blooded. It was vengful, but not vengeance.

Perhaps that's why blindzebra and tomegun and I are disagreeing so intensely. Perhaps I didn't communicate the picture very well. Perhaps they are thinking boys, I'm thingking girls.

I asked the question, as I said at the beginning, to see if anyone said anything that changed my mind about what I did. My instinct said it wasn't flagrant, my book-learning mind said it was. I debated for a fraction of a second, and decided not to call it flagrant. I posted this to see where the discussion led, and whether or not I might be convinced of something different. It has been very helpful to examine all the different angles, and see the different points of view.

I notice two things in the last page or two. First, I wouldn't say A1 threw a punch. She had an open, flat hand, and it flapped at the wrist as she was reaching. She didn't exactly swing her arm, it was more of a reaching out. Perhaps those weak actions were why I decided against flagrant.

The other thing I notice is that the whole description of "anyone throws a punch, he's gone" doesn't apply to my situation, because these are girls. Yea, I know girls do fight, and I've tossed two for it over my five years. But the way girls fight is usually different from boys, and doesn't usually involve throwing punches. This girl reached out to sort of slap at someone, but she definitely didn't throw a punch. It was calculated, but I think I should not have said cold-blooded. It was vengful, but not vengeance.

Perhaps that's why blindzebra and tomegun and I are disagreeing so intensely. Perhaps I didn't communicate the picture very well. Perhaps they are thinking boys, I'm thingking girls. [/B][/QUOTE]

I went back and checked I never said he.:D

Actually the only fight I've ever had in a high school game
was in a girls game and these girls threw punches.

Back to your case, I read your first post as HIT, and therefore a punch, or at least a slap. Based upon your clearification I could see it as an attempted grab or push.
So an intentional would work if it was not a striking blow, but a grab or push.