Hit's a Foul!

[rainmaker]

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]

[blindzebra]

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.

[zebraman]

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

[Nevadaref]

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:

Originally posted by rainmaker
It was calculated, cold-blooded vengeance.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by zebraman

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.

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.

[tomegun]

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.

[mick]

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

[Nu1]

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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

[zebraman]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by rainmaker
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.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by rainmaker
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]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Snaqwells
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?