Another first-Bruce Lee Layup Drill

[devdog69]

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

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by devdog69
Instead A1 jumps in the air and karate kicks the defender in the chest

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

[canuckrefguy]

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...

[Joe McCain]

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.

[NICK]

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

[devdog69]

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?

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by devdog69
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]

[devdog69]

If you thought it was flagrant then you should have tossed him/her. 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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by devdog69
But, with 20 or so Division I college coaches watching this game there was absolutely no way I was going to go flagrant.

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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by devdog69
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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by devdog69
But, with 20 or so Division I college coaches watching this game there was absolutely no way I was going to go flagrant.

Why would coaches in the audience affect any call that you could possibly make in a game? You're not intimating that you would make or not 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??????

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by devdog69
[/i]

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 does 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.

[devdog69]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Why would coaches in the audience affect any call that you could possibly make in a game? You're not intimating that you would make or not 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??????

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.

[devdog69]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

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.

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.

[devdog69]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Uh, Dev, NCAA rule 4-23-3 does 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.