![]() |
YOU make the call
|
Flagrant foul and ejection.
|
What do you mean? The official is calling a technical foul on a coach. Are you asking if he should also call a foul on the player who hit the shooter after the technical was called?
|
It does appear the defender was attempting to block the shot. However, it does appear the defender stuck his knee into the danger zone of the shooter. Based on that conclusion, I think I would be inclined to call a flagrant personal foul... based on the wording in the rulebook, "if personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing."
Additional information could not hurt, such as, whether or not this player has been causing trouble or playing dirty the entire contest. Regardless, I feel obligated to call a flagrant personal foul. |
Quote:
|
T against the coach, and AT LEAST intentional against the player if not flagrant...I lean toward flagrant.
|
Quote:
|
I may be way out on this one, but it almost looks like the coach was trying to distract the ref from seeing this contact. Heads up to the ref for staying with the play while calling the T.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't think the defender was going for the ball. His hands were never even remotely straight up. He aimed for the body, pure and simple. I wish I knew what the coach was saying! |
Quote:
4-11-1 says that continuous motion does not apply unless a defensive player commits a foul, blah blah blah. But 4-11-2 says "opponent", not necessarily a player. And 6-7, exception C also says "opponent". So does the T by the defensive coach cause the ball to become dead? :confused: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
How about a False Double Foul with both the technical on the coach and an intentional (which is what the official called) on the player being penalized? It appears to me that the whistle for the T was too late to stop any action by the player.
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24pm. |