I actually had this situation at a camp last week.
Player A1 has the ball on a breakaway, only one defender and him...defender decides to pretty much concede the layup and not foul so he takes a set position in the path but gives the dribbler all kinds of time and room to get around him. Instead A1 jumps in the air and karate kicks the defender in the chest and in doing so twist himself so bad he can't even make the layup, though of course I would have waved it off anyway. I just had player control foul, though it could have been sold as intentional, it was that obvious. I overheard his coach afterwards saying 'Brandon, that's a foul, you kicked the dude in the chest why did you do that, shoot the danged layup, you had it'...funny

HTBT, but I'm leaning toward calling this a flagrant foul. If this was at all intentional, A1 is hitting the showers early.

No one "karate kicks" someone by accident (except maybe Jackie Chan in one of his many funny movies)...

You should have tossed him immediately.

Unless there are contextual circumstances that we're not taking into account...

While I too admit that I wasn't there, yet I'm with the Canadian and Mark on this one. Based on your discription, it sounds suspiciously like a flagrant to me.

I'd welcome having some of you senior guys weigh in on this one.

Deliberate kick? Automatic disqualification. There is no room in the game of basketball for that.

HTBT, I guess...honestly flagrant NEVER crossed my mind, perhaps because there was not a great amount of displacement though there was some. But, with 20 or so Division I college coaches watching this game there was absolutely no way I was going to go flagrant. It floors me you guys that TALK about something being AUTOMATIC flagrant...have you been in an actual ballgame?

Uh oh....

If fans (20 D1 college coaches) affected your call on the floor then you shouldn't be officiating. If you thought it was flagrant then you should have tossed him/her. Also there are automatic flagrants, I don't see how you can think there aren't. And to answer your question, honestly the way you talk, I believe that several of the people who responded with "flagrant" are more experienced then you.

[Edited by Snake~eyes on Jul 17th, 2005 at 01:53 PM]

1) Obviously I didn't think it was flagrant or I would have called it, regardless of who was watching. But, in a high profile game, or any game for that matter, I'm going to let the game call itself. Get the obvious, make the obvious and not go looking under the covers for the off the wall call. When I see a flagrant foul, I know it, I don't have to stop and think about it or come and ask for advice, that's the 'had to be there' factor.

2) Those that responded with flagrant are fine. I have no problem with their opinions, except for the one that said the kick should be an automatic flagrant and I disagree with that. Make it fit the situation and the intent of the rule which describes flagrant as 'of a violent or savage nature'. This was not violent or savage, imho.

3) Your comment about those who responded being more experienced than me is total bs. Neither of us knows whether that is true and it is irrelevant besides. It was an obvious poke and I don't appreciate the unprofessionalism.

If I'm scouting for a D-I team, there's no way I want a kid who thinks kicking an opponent is acceptable playing for my team.

That said, if you don't see this as flagrant, fine. We're all allowed to interpret situations how we see fit (especially you because you were there) and to disagree at the end of the day. What concerns me is that you seem to be okay with changing your calls because there are scouts in the stands. I'll wait for Padgett to read this thread. I'm sure the only response he'll need is his tagline.

I don't have my rulebook with me this weekend, but take another look at yours. Per rule, a kick or an attempt to kick is fighting, which is always a flagrant foul.

Why would coaches in the audience affect <b>any</b> call that you could possibly make in a game? You're not intimating that you would make or <b>not</b> make a call just because some coaches might not approve of that call, are you? If you are, I think that you are completely wrong. Calls should be made on their individual merit, not because you're worried about who's watching the game. That includes any supervisors that might be in the crowd too imo. Just make the call that you think is right. If your supervisor doesn't agree, then you can talk about it.

But not making a call because coaches were watching??????

2) Those that responded with flagrant are fine. I have no problem with their opinions, except for the one that said the kick should be an automatic flagrant and I disagree with that. Make it fit the situation and the intent of the rule which describes flagrant as 'of a violent or savage nature'. This was not violent or savage, imho.

[/B][/QUOTE]Uh, Dev, NCAA rule 4-23-3 <b>does</b> say that a kick is "fighting", and as such is flagrant. The language of that rule defines "fighting" as an attempt to kick an opponent and also further clarifies that whether the opponent is actually contacted with the attempted kick or not is irrelevant.

The only intent of even mentioning the coaches was just to portray that it was an intense high profile game, one in which I am going to give players every benefit of the doubt, let players play, and let the game come to me. NO, I would not hesitate to call intentional fouls or flagrant fouls if the call fit the play or situation. IMHO, it did not in this one. Now, if the kid had been a turd and I felt it was a lashing out because of frustration or something, yes, maybe I go int/flagrant. But, in this game which was a good close, hotly contested one I think it would have been a bad call.

Mark, the definitions of flagrant foul does indeed mention kicking saying 'If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing.'

I'm still looking at the term violent contact and also judging the players intentions in the play I had. There was absolutely not violent contact and I really believe the players intent was to clear space not to strike out or harm. Again, that is my judgement of the play and others may have differing opinions.

Uh, Dev, NCAA rule 4-23-3 <b>does</b> say that a kick is "fighting", and as such is flagrant. The language of that rule defines "fighting" as an attempt to kick an opponent and also further clarifies that whether the opponent is actually contacted with the attempted kick or not is irrelevant. [/B][/QUOTE]

You are certainly correct JR, I may have to go down with the ship on this one though.

Did he kick the defender? Yeah, i guess so, his foot made contact and slightly displaced defender, sounds like a kick

Is kicking another player a flagrant foul by rule? Yes, it is.

So, if you had it to do over again you would call a flagrant foul? No, I would not. It did not fit this game and situation. I judged and would again it to be similar to extending a forearm to create space and not an act that should be judged as flagrant.

Did he kick the defender? Yeah, i guess so, his foot made contact and slightly displaced defender, sounds like a kick

Is kicking another player a flagrant foul by rule? Yes, it is.

So, if you had it to do over again you would call a flagrant foul? No, I would not. It did not fit this game and situation. I judged and would again it to be similar to extending a forearm to create space and not an act that should be judged as flagrant. [/B][/QUOTE]Dev, that's certainly good enough for me. I was just pointing out that, by rule, a kick is a flagrant act. In real life, the official on the firing line has to make the exact same decisions that you made above: was this particular act really a flagrant act? Did the game situation really warrant that extreme action should be taken in this particular case? As you said, does the call fit <b>this</b> particular game and <b>this</b> particular situation?

I wasn't there and I didn't see the call. That means that I really don't have any grounds that will allow me to second-guess your judgement on your call. Which means I ain't gonna even think of second-guessing you. You were there. If you thought it was the right call for that situation, then it was the right call.

Dev, that's certainly good enough for me. I was just pointing out that, by rule, a kick is a flagrant act. In real life, the official on the firing line has to make the exact same decisions that you made above: was this particular act really a flagrant act? Did the game situation really warrant that extreme action should be taken in this particular case? As you said, does the call fit <b>this</b> particular game and <b>this</b> particular situation?

I wasn't there and I didn't see the call. That means that I really don't have any grounds that will allow me to second-guess your judgement on your call. Which means I ain't gonna even think of second-guessing you. You were there. If you thought it was the right call for that situation, then it was the right call.



[/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, partner. ;)

Dev, my guess is that the play as you saw it, and the play as we're seeing it in our imaginations are two different things. It sounded as though he tried to high kick the defender, and maybe caught a piece of the defender's shirt. But perhaps that's not what really happened. Perhaps you could be a little more specific about the details of where the foot went in relation to the defenders' geography?

Edited to add:

Okay, I went back to the original post, and it does say that the shooter kicked the defender in the chest. It also uses the word "karate" which implies a sort of deliberate, planned and forceful action. Still, I'm thinking that if you didn't think it was even intentional, then perhaps the words you used don't mean the same things as what I'm hearing. I think you should try again with a different vocabulary. I would think any karate kick aimed at another player would be flagrant.

[Edited by rainmaker on Jul 17th, 2005 at 07:02 PM]

Absolutely correct, Julie. I think in my attempt at humor, I definitely gave a somewhat glorified twist on what actually happened. The player definitely put his body in a position to contact the defender and clear space. I believe the foot made contact with the defender in his lower left chest area, near the bottom of the rib cage. It was enough that he was bumped backwards only slightly. I don't know how else to downplay it, there's only so much I can say, because he definitely made foot to body contact. I just felt then and still do that it was no different than a forearm or shoulder clear out.

glad it wasn't as violent as we thought, but....
 

The play as you described it, along with the title of the thread you started, does not reflect what happened.

You can't blame other people for shouting "flagrant" - in the future, perhaps use a little more discretion and be a little more precise with your information.

I guess I don't get it. If a deliberate kick in the chest isn't a flagrant foul, I don't know what is.

Oh yeah.....and read my tag line.

I don't know either...This isn't soccer, you don't kick another player to create space.

I thing the point is, it wasn't a deliberate kick to the chest. It was an attempt to clear out the defender, and it was a good solid foul, but Devin overstated the situation for dramatic effect. He's learned his lesson. Next time, he'll use more smilies and describe things a little more precisely.

Thank you Julie.. It's Devon, btw...I appreciate the support. Not that I'm afraid to battle with Padgett, he doesn't scare me, lol, not as long as he's in WA anyway.

Good that you pointed that out, because Juulie is a real stickler for spelling and grammar :D

And Padgett's harmless - as long as GWB doesn't appoint him as U.S. ambassador in France. :p

Got it -- Devon, on, on. And since we're picking at nits, Padgett doesn't actually live in Washington, although he does live in Washington County, Oregon. I don't know if he's less scary in Washington. I've never worked with him there.

Dare to dream!

I'd straighten out those cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

BTW - I just accepted the post of US ambassador to Antartica. I think it's mostly because I speak fluent Penguin.

Dare to dream!

I'd straighten out those cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

BTW - I just accepted the post of US ambassador to Antartica. I think it's mostly because I speak fluent Penguin. [/B][/QUOTE]

Just be careful to keep a weather eye out for those pesky leapord seals!

After reading half the responses to this thread, my comment was going to be... "Dev, I understand what you're saying but some of these people never will." Well, they proved me wrong. I'm proud of this group. Sniffle sniffle.

Someone's tag line used to read, "I used to have a sense of humor, then I became a referee."