What are your thoughts?

[26 Year Gap]

And if 21's team is in the playoffs, he may end up not playing. A darned shame. Now where is that squirrel?

[JRutledge]

To say an intentional foul call would have prevented other actions is really not looking at the entire picture. Players get fouled all the time during the end of games or fouled intentionally and they do not react in that manner. Even if the call was made that does not mean the players would not have had a reaction to the bear hug. Also there are situations that we will never know in this story. If the teams had any history with each other that could have played a much bigger role in the following events. The teams were rivals and sometimes situations from other sports and between the schools can spark more fire than whether a call was made or not.

All I can say is I was not there and I have no idea what should have been called. Did you talk to them afterwards and find out if they thought the bear hug was apart of the flagrant act?

Peace

[Bad Zebra]

My thinking is that part of 21's reaction is due to the fact that he got mugged...and no whistle. If everybody heard a whistle right away, one would ASSume that play stops, 21 feels somewhat vindicated, and proceeds to shoot or spot-in.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

My thinking is that part of 21's reaction is due to the fact that he got mugged...and no whistle. If everybody heard a whistle right away, one would ASSume that play stops, 21 feels somewhat vindicated, and proceeds to shoot or spot-in.

Having no whistle on the play does not mean a player reacts differently than he did on this play. I have had games where you call nothing but fouls and the game escalates in temperature. We can speculate all we want to, but that does not mean that is why the fight too place. Remember, we have rivals here. For all you know one guy could be having fun with the other guy's girlfriend (which I have known that to happen) and that comes out on the playing surface. Maybe there was something said earlier and it got under one of the kid's skin. Maybe he said something as he was grabbing him. We have no idea. I just want to caution people in thinking there is something so magical about our whistle that nothing else takes place because we put air into it.

Peace

[Adam]

I have to agree with Rut here. I'm not saying the official shouldn't have called the intentional, or that there's no way it would have helped. The first fight I ever officiated occurred despite a whistle on the bear hug. I've seen two kids retaliate this year, and both times the initial foul was called. I T'd up a MS girl for shoving an opponent (a good solid body shove, center mass)after I whistled the foul. I warned a JV boy for shoving the arms of his opponent after I whistled the foul. Blowing the whistle isn't going to stop them all, even though it's likely to stop some of them.

[brandan89]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

To say an intentional foul call would have prevented other actions is really not looking at the entire picture. Players get fouled all the time during the end of games or fouled intentionally and they do not react in that manner. Even if the call was made that does not mean the players would not have had a reaction to the bear hug. Also there are situations that we will never know in this story. If the teams had any history with each other that could have played a much bigger role in the following events. The teams were rivals and sometimes situations from other sports and between the schools can spark more fire than whether a call was made or not.

All I can say is I was not there and I have no idea what should have been called. Did you talk to them afterwards and find out if they thought the bear hug was apart of the flagrant act?

Peace

No I didnt have talk to them about the play because I did not think it was my place. However, the reason I think the intentional would have put a stop to things is because the only reason why he had his arms around him was to foul. When the foul would have been called he would have let go and wouldent have continued holding him waiting for the foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by brandan89

No I didnt have talk to them about the play because I did not think it was my place. However, the reason I think the intentional would have put a stop to things is because the only reason why he had his arms around him was to foul. When the foul would have been called he would have let go and wouldent have continued holding him waiting for the foul.

You are assuming a lot. I had had situations this year where the whistle was blown and during the dead ball the players react negatively to being in contact with other players. If you officiate long enough you will see what I am talking about one day.

Peace