LAST SAT NIGHT IN A BOY'S VARSITY GAME I HAD A CALL THAT AT THE TIME I THOUGHT WAS CORRECT--UNTIL I THOUGHT ABOUT IT MORE THE NEXT DAY. THERE WAS A LONG REBOUND & THE PLAYERS ALL TAKE OFF THE OTHER DIRECTION.2 GUY'S LEFT IN THE BACK COURT{OPP. TEAMS}. 1 PLAYER TRIES VERY HARD 2 TRIP THE OTHER PLAYER. WITHOUT A DOUBT A CHEAPSHOT!! BUT THERE WAS NO CONTACT MADE AS HE MISSED THE OTHER PLAYER THAT HE TRIED 2 TRIP.{ CLOSE BUT NO CONTACT}. THERE WAS NO WAY THAT I WAS GOING 2 LET THAT GO EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO CONTACT,I GAVE HIM AN INTENTIONAL FOUL! EVERYBODY IN THE GYM SAW IT AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE CALL AT THE TIMECAN YOU HAVE A INTENTIONAL FOUL WITHOUT ANY CONTACT OR SHOULD HAVE I GIVEN OUT A "T"?? THE ONLY DIFF. IS WHERE THE BALL WAS TAKEN OUT AT AFTER THE FREETHROWS BUT AT THE END OF A CLOSE GAME WITHOUT MUCH TIME LEFT---- THAT COULD BE A HUGE DIFF. WAS I CORRECT HERE OR SHOULD HAVE I GIVEN A "T" LIKE IN A SITUATION 4 THROWING EXCESSIVE ELBOWS???

Whatever you want to say, contact or not, the action by that player qualifies as unsportsmanlike conduct. I think a Technical is the way to go.

4.19.13
An unsportsmanlike foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct. Acts of deceit such as accepting a teammate's foul or free throw, faking being fouled, use of profane or inappropriate language or gestures are unsportsmanlike.

[Edited by Paul LeBoutillier on Jan 23rd, 2001 at 11:37 PM]

I agree w/paul
 

Technical would have been more correct (technically)...but i see why you called I.F. Everyone knew right away what you had and why.

However, this borders on the punch or swing that misses, which neccesitates a flagrant/eject. What's the difference between an arm and a leg (or a head-butt, for that matter!) It's the intent we're penalizing, right?

If player HAD tripped him, would you have called a flagrant?

I'd say a T is the proper call. Although, calling something is better than not calling anything.

You might want to try typing not in all caps. Caps are usually reserved for yelling or screaming, or to emphasize text.

..Mike

...i thought he intended to emphasize, a la Dick Vitale...makes for more interesting reading!

CAPS
 

My bad on the cap's I am still pretty new at this computer stuff! I't won't happen again!! Thanks 4 the help!!

Here in the DC area, we only apologize for the Caps when they get swept in the Stanley Cup Finals:)

Depending on the game situation, i personally might have called a disqualifing foul. Deliberate attempt to injure. Int.Foul was good, 'T' might have been better. I would have to see the action to make a firm judgment.

keep smiling
SH

This is how I felt at the time!
 

If there would have been any contact. I would have kicked the player out of the game! But since he tried and missed- I felt that I should probly leave him in???? Was i wrong? There was intent on the trip- but he was still pretty sneeky about it!

Re: This is how I felt at the time!
 

No, I don't think you were wrong at all. Since he made no contact, and since his action didn't provoke a retalitory response, a Technical would suffice.

Playing Devil's advocate And agreeing with Pizanno)
 

The INTENT remains the same....The "tripper" overtly intended to kick the opponent. How do we as officials determine the "degree of intent"? Was this a "gentle, I am tight on you and can get away with one trip" attempt? Or was it a full-fledge "this guy is going down" trip? In this case, I "trip up" the tripper and call the Flagrant!


Lets suppose the "tripper" DOES make contact and the "tripee" rolls an ankle. Does it change your call? Had the "tripper" been witnessed on "hard fouls" or questionable sportsmanship earlier? Do you consider these in this call?

Of Course, I will include the diclaimer, I was not there and it is easy to be a "Morning after" official.(BIG GRIN)

Thanks 4 the imput guy's!!!!