Youtube video
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOZmpixWxiE&NR=1

Comments on the no call?

For the FT shooter leaving the semi-circle before the ball hit the ring/backboard?

Yup, that was a violation.

The game is better if a foul is called. Attempt to injure perhaps. Blocking below the waist belongs in a different sport, and even then only in the Close Line Play Area.

Also, why does red player # 1 have a mismatched coloured undershirt?

Comments on the no call?

How did you determine this was a "no call"?

See JR's response :)

(sort of a trick question)

And furthermore, the ball never did hit the ring, which is a violation all by itself.

But I sure wouldn't call the foul that did get called "flagrant". It was just a clueless kid who all of a sudden saw someone coming towrad him and sort of ducked to avoid getting nailed. Good call, but not flagrant.

We must be watching different videos.....:)

1) I though that the ball just ticked the front of the ring and came straight down on the second FT. That's why they headed up-court with no throw-in.

2) Looked to me like the defender went sideways and then low-bridged the offensive player. Always a dangerous act. I'd have thought very seriously about calling that sucker flagrant.

I'm sure you mean the "no call" of letting the player wear white sleeves under a red jersey. There's absolutely no excuse for that. :eek:

I suppose it might have but the arc looks pretty pure to me.

I'll go back and look at it again.

pretty obvious that kid doesnt belong on the court.

looks flagrant to me and i wouldnt think seriously about it -- kids gone -- he should stick to whatever keeps him off any playing field/court

2)... I would not have thought very long about calling it flagrant. X-Flagrant!

Not being smart but what is an "X-Flagrant"?:confused:

its like X-treme football and X-treme "anything"

its a flagrant to the "X"

which has a derivative that is the inverse of the Y-flagrant that could best be explained as X-flagrant=1/(whiny coach*team fouls)^Y-flagrant -- or "catwoman" for simplicity sake.

and i can comment on "Not being smart..." but that wouldn't be a stretch would it lol :)

I thought the ball barely tipped the rim.

As far as the wrong colored undershirt...it's obviously not a serious league. Most of those kids do not look like they are in basketball shape and the kid shooting the turn around fade-away free throw are good clues.

When you've got kids like that with no body control, sometimes crazy stuff happens. The defender thought he could influence the dribbler by stepping in front of him. When he realized he was about to get trucked, he ducked and big haired boy goes flying. Hope he wasn't hurt.

I say it was legal tackle, the ball was dislodged due to contact, and thus is ruled a fumble, play stands as called its 1st and ten!!!! I've seen plenty of that in my church games!!!:D

Is it just me - or did they also allow a defensive player to stand one space too high on the lane? :confused:

So... there is:

• a defensive player in the wrong spot
• spots 1, 2, and 4 are taken on the L's side
• a shooter that left the semi-circle early
• a missed foul call

This must be Old School and one of his college games. ;)

Good observation and conclusion.....:D

I was using the X to signify the crossed arms. Just extra emphasis.

That's what I was afraid of....:eek:

Wrong signal. The crossed arms is the signal for an <b>intentional</b> foul, not a flagrant foul. It's signal #34 on the NFHS chart. Intentional fouls and flagrant fouls are completely different animals, with completely different penalties. There is no official signal for a flagrant foul. A lot of officials do use the old baseball umpire heave-ho though.

I eject someone thusly:

http://eteamz.active.com/concordsocc...ithRedCard.jpg

Wow...that kid is a class 1 azz-hole...he has no business being on a basketball court. That was a deliberate act intended to hurt someone...hopefully the hurt kid's parents filed some kind of charges against the idiot. I have watched that thing 5 or 6 times now and I still can't believe he did that...

It seemed like a good idea at the time. :o

I still can't get it to play. Is there another clip posted with the same play?

Intentional block.
Nothing flagrant there.
Kid that fell probably wasn't even hurt unless he landed strangely on his left wrist.

So you're letting this kid continue to play?

You guys play some hardazz basketball U.P. there.

If the blocker has been overly aggressive in other instances during the game, then surely, I'll take him out. But in that game shown, I didn't see anything to confirm that was the case.

The other kid probably hopped up and continued, as soon as he got patted on the head a couple times. [Didn't see that part of the game either. :) ]

Didn't really look flagrant to me...just the defender realizing too late that he bit off more than he could chew in stepping in front of the ballhandler. He realizes he wasn't going to slow down, so he just kinda ducked to absorb the imminent impact to try to protect his goofy azz.

Are you serious, Mick...the kid turns his body and dives into the dribbler's legs...dribbler then lands on his neck/shoulder area...even if he does bounce right back up, that is absolutely a non-basketball play and gets that little turd tossed right then and there...

That's the way I saw it too, fwiw.....

YU.P. I'm runnin' right alongside of Bad Zebra. The only reason I consider it an intentional was cuz it was way to close to the moving player and way too stoopid.

this is how officials get into trouble -- one play and conflicting results. just from how he was shooting freethrows he comes off as a goof who doest give a crap. there shouldnt be much doubt that he wasnt trying to be funny or do something more stupid however there are a few here that would allow him to continue being funny.

Agreed...take the whole sequence into account and he was not there to play basketball - he needed to be gone.

Not to worry, rocky and deecee.
I got your back, either way you go.:)

Guys - I don't think there's any question that this was a flagrant foul (intentional or not) and deserves an ejection. But why are we wasting time debating about the free throw antics, etc.? Obviously this was some kind of rec game as suggested by the jerseys and such, so having a kid goof around a little is just what happens in those kind of games. My guess is the refs were just counting the minutes until the bar down the street opened. :rolleyes:

It's a great learning environment!

I got my start in officiating doing games just like this. High level of goofiness of the players and ample opportunities to test rules knowledge. Think of the craziest scenario you can, and you'll likely find one even crazier at any local gym at 10:00 Saturday morning. Nothing matches the stupidity of 10 pre-pubescent males running around a confined area.

Multiply by 10 and you have the U.S. Senate. ;)

The Republican part, anyway


:D WHOOT!!

Anyway, on second look at the video....

Goofball is obviously not your prototypical basketball player.

What I see is dribbler going up the floor fast - Goofball goes to intercept him, dribbler has head down, and then goes slightly airborne to make that half-baseball pass....Goofball sees him flying through the air and, being the athlete that he is, just ducks instinctively. That, combined with the dribbler being airborne, sends dribbler flying.

Intentional, for sure.

Not so sure about flagrant.

My $0.02.

Whether he's just being stoopid, uncoordinated, bit off more than he could chew, or whatever, it really doesn't matter to me. The result of his actions was very dangerous and definitely non-basketball. For the safety of everybody else on the floor (not to mention what little is left of the integrity of the game) it's time for little Johnny to leave.

i am not arguing the level of play or the age group -- i am simply stating we have one set of events and we have 2 seperate penalties. this isnt a case of bang-bang block/charge. and this is actually a good sample of how varying levels of judgement actually make our job so much harder.

i think it would be great if the fed came up with a video with many common type plays/contacts and had an answer like "this should be called X". that would aleviate at least 50-70% of judgement issues. but instead we get stupid rules rewritten to make even less sense.

Amen. After the turnaround jumper on the second FT, I'd recommend a drug test for this Bozo.

Opportunity to make the game "better" and get control over the circus being called a game. See post on the camp situation for further reference. Flagrant foul, have a nice day.

P.S., use the morning to improve your golf game or go fishin' with the boy and forgo the $10.
:cool:

OMG, the players even have their shirts untucked!!!! Why the no call?

I would simply look at the coach and tell him that this player is finished playing basketball today. No stearn looks at the player, and no flagarant is necessary. This doesn't appear to be a sanctioned game of any kind.

Great attitude. Penalize the other 9 guys on the floor because of one goofball? Chances are some of them actually love the game and are developing actual skills. If everyone took that attitude, no one officiates for the young kids coming up. They're left with OS.

OS would have called a charge. :D