Flagrant T or not?
 

The other night in a boys JV game, my partner gave a T to the home bench after an assistant had something to say to him.

I asked what happened at half time, and he said the assistant started barking at him about a call, and he told the head coach that he would listen to him, but he needs to control his bench and we would not be listening to assistants.

The HC tells the assistant (with the ref standing right there) that he needs to be quiet, and the assistant says "I won't sit here and let him cheat our kids!".

My partner whacks him, and life goes on.

Now, after the game, I was thinking about this, and we were debating whether the comment was worthy of a ejection on its own. I lean towards the philosophy that you can maybe get away with questioning my judgment, but for an assistant (or anyone for that matter) to accuse me of cheating is beyond the pale, and warrants a trip to the locker room.

On the other hand, the T worked, to the extent that the assistant shut up for the rest of the game, so maybe a flagrant would be going above and beyond.

Nah. Plain old T will suffice.

Regular T

Easy 2 for 1 special.... just a whack!

Indirect to the coach.... seat belt.

Just to add...assistant coaches don't get warnings. Whack.

Impugning the integrity of an official would earn a flagrant from me.

"Is It That Obvious" ???
 

Tim Donaghy would have just ignored the comment, no technical.

Sorry, rules don't warrant/support a Flagrant for this situation. Any consideration of a flagrant for this is a reach on the part of the official.

Once again, Nevada is making the game about him. :mad:

Really, and you decide to impugn the motives of Nevada by insisting he's making it about him?

I've had my share of disagreements with Nevada, and this may or may not be one of them (I may have tossed him, especially after a warning), but he's not alone in this one. And, frankly, your shot here is just gratuitous.

Disagree with him if you want, but really?

I don't think that is the case at all - what constitutes a flagrant technical is clearly a matter of judgement, is it not? So how could the rules not "warrant/support" such a call? I can certainly understand the argument that a flagrant is not necessary, but I don't think it is really that cut and dried.

A flagrant foul (technical) is one defined by rule as "displaying unacceptable behavior". I think accusing an official of cheating certainly can be argued to fall under that definition.

In the interest of a little more context, this was a very ugly game. The home team racked up something like 38 fouls, and 95% of them were garbage - reaches, over-agressive play, stupid crap. A T was called on a player for complaining about calls, and certainly a couple more could have (should have?) been called. The game was generally one of those deals where you are doing your best to just manage the train wreck. Home team lost 40-80.

The reason the comment bothered me is that the attitude of the assistant was so clearly reflected in his players. They were getting their asses kicked, and the 40 point lead was not because they could not play defense, could not make a pass, and lacked fundamentals, but because the officials were screwing them. Just look at that foul count! We won't call fouls on the other team, and won't "let them just play" either.

To me, this assistant, sitting right next to his players, blaming this train wreck on the cheating officials was pretty much the casebook example of grossly poor sportsmanship and refusal to take any responsibility for their own actions.

All this, of course, is in hindsight. In the moment, I don't think I would have thought this through, and likely would have done the same thing as my partner.

As I read Berkut's Post......
 

it occurs to me one of the things I like best about this Forum......

Every time I think I've called an "iffy" game, missed some calls, am disappointed by my performance, or thought I could do better, or had "one of "those" games, I can come here and y'all can trump it and make me feel better!

While I've had a few, I rarely: have coaches/players/fans go nuts, issue T's, have administrative nightmares, have that game that get totally out of control, etc. But, I am better prepared ffor it if they do!

Thanks for always cheering me up......kinda! :p

"...reaches...?" :confused:

Rule reference please.

This is going to be interesting.

Don't tell us you called "reaching" fouls. I'm sure you mean they reached and caused contact illegally with their hands. And...what's the mechanic for "stupid crap"? :D

BTW - if any team personnel impugns my integrity by implying I'm cheating, it's automatically a flagrant foul, with possibly the exception of "call it both ways". In that case, I inform them that comment means I'm cheating in favor of one team over the other and I won't stand for it. If that doesn't shut them up about that issue, then it's a flagrant T.

If you have to argue your point, your case is not very strong.

Flagrant Foul definition:
...may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking, and kneeing. If technical, it involved deadball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar, or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

You can't get there in this case.

Additionally, nothing in 10.4 - 5 supports your case for flagrant.

Let me ask you this. A1, comes up to you and says, "You're a fuc#ing moron." You going flagrant with this?

Assistant coach says the same thing. You going with a standard T?
HC says the same thing. What's your call?

I've got a flagrant on all of them. Frankly, accusing me of cheating is just as unacceptable.

The f-bomb meets the criteria of vulgar, hence a flagrant is warranted.

And accusing me of cheating meets the criteria of unacceptable. You may not agree, but IMO the rules backing is there.

And FWIW, in the other thread, Nevada was right by rule that he could call that T on the fan. No one argued that; the question was whether it was the right call to make under the circumstances.

"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
 

Berkut: I agree with BktBallRef. If you are an official, posting on this Forum, please speak only in "Officialese". That' the only way we will know, for sure, that you're a real official, not an impostor. If we all don't speak "Officialese", then the only way to tell us apart from coaches, fanboys, players, etc. will be for the Official Forum to issue us some type of identification badge, or something? Official Forum badges? Cool. When asked, we could just whip it out (no comments from Mark Padgett please.).

YouTube - Classic Movie Line #34

YouTube - We don't need no stinking badges!

So are you saying the only way a flagrant can be called is if there is profanity?

If that is the case, you're wrong. In the OP's example, the AC attacked his integrity. That is a no-no- most likely a flagrant no-no.

Actually, I did. A T on a supporter requires interfering with the proper conduct of the game. I argued that the fan didn't interfere with anything (other than perhaps medical personnel).

Never Prosper ...
 

C'mon guys. A coach, on the court, within hearing distance of players, and fans, accuses an official of cheating, and some of you argue that a flagrant foul is not warranted, by rule? You've got to be kidding me? Now I can certainly understand an argument regarding whether, or not, a flagrant foul is warranted in this situation, we all have different length fuses, but to argue that it's not warranted, by rule, is ridiculous. Do any of you really believe that the NFHS would not consider a coach publicly accusing an official of cheating, during the game, of being a flagrant act?

And it could be argued that a parent coming down to help tend to little Jonny intereferes with the "orderly" progress of the game (also from the note) by setting a poor precedent. I'm not saying it's a wise course, but the rule backing is there.

Perhaps. Also seems a bit of a stretch. Of course, the note also requires discretion...

:rolleyes: Where's the beating a dead horse picture?


By the way, for this OP, I think prior actions/attitudes in the game determine if it's flagrant or not. If I feel somebody is implying I'm cheating and doing it fairly publicly, I'd prefer to not have them watching any more of the game.

Actually, you can get there in this case.

"...a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct."

"If technical, it involved deadball contact or noncontact at any time which is...abusive conduct."

What constitutes abusive conduct cannot be decided by one person for everyone. What I find abusive, you may find acceptable. But that doesn't mean either of us is wrong.

1) Um, arent you arguing your point now?:D

2) Um, I just got there by taking out the extraneous and irrelevant words.:D

3) Um, rule 10-4-5 is completely irrelevant in this particular case. You can use rules 10-4-1(a) or 10-4-1(c) to justify calling a technical foul on the assistant coach. And rule 4-19-4 is now used to determine whether that technical foul might also be flagrant in nature. That's how it works with all the unsporting acts listed under 10-4-1. Straight judgment calls.

Note that the decision as to whether a technical foul should be called in the first place right through to whether a flagrant "T" should maybe be called is strictly a straight judgment call by the official on the spot. We all have different tolerance levels. Re: Nevada....you can question another official's tolerance level and judgment(which I certainly did about Nevada in another thread) but I don't think that you can question his right to make that call, by rule. And in this case also, imo you can maybe question his judgment in making the flagrant "T" call but you can't question his right to make that call under NFHS rules.

I might not agree with Nevada's call but I'll defend to his death his right to make that call.

I Can't Wait To Read His Next Post, If I'm Lucky, He'll Pick On Me ...
 

Man, I'm glad you're back from the dead.

"Reaches" - as in a colloquiolism meaning "randomly sticking your arm out into the dribbler in the vain hope that you can poke the ball out rather than actually playing any actual defense - usually from behind or the side as the guy is blowing past you..."

The stupid crap mechanic is usually a shrug of the shoulders, right?

Fair enough.

Whenever I hear a coach ask, "wasn't he reaching" or "wasn't that a reach", I know it's only a matter of time before he starts asking for an "over the back" call. Reaching is not a foul, and 99% of the time when they reach there's no contact. And half of that remaining 1%, there's no advantage.

I think that estimate is high. The reach I see so often, at all levels, is the defender making a steal attempt. Defender reaches across the body of the dribbler. Often the defender gets only ball with the hand, but makes considerable contact with his arm on the hip/leg/torso of the offensive player. Depending on your angle, the contact may be very difficult to see, let alone measure.

"So Pure, It Floats" ...
 

So, according to my trusty slide rule, 99.5% of the time it isn't a foul. Wow. That's a higher percentage than Ivory Soap (99 44/100%)

I think you all know what I meant, I am talking about "reaching" fouls - when the defender is going for a steal, and is in fact creating contact with the dribbler.

And yes, reaching is not a foul. Reaching and making contact might be though...

And what I am talking about is reaching, and generally making a lot of contact, maybe with the offensive players face, hammering the ball loose, and then looking stunned, just STUNNED! that there is a whistle. Because we were, you know, cheating the kids and all.

I just love the tender and noble concern coaches have for their kids. They don't really care about winning or losing, they just want the kids to not be cheated by those dastardly officials!

Note: When I say "coaches" I am referring only to particular coaches, not coaches in general. The 80-20 rule applies, of course, and most coaches actually do, I think, really care about their kids more than they do about us, or how we might be cheating them.

So forgive any unintentional over-generalization.

Reachin' And Foulin' ???
 

How many times do I have to say it. If you're an official, please post in "Officialese", always. That's the only way that we can tell, for sure, that you're not one of, "Them".

I was doing some games with a first year official who coached for eight years. In fact, they were his first games.

He kept calling "over the back" on rebounding fouls. After the first, I explained that the call does not exist, and why it is important to avoid using the term.

He only did it three more times in the next two games though, although he looked rather chagrined each time he realized he was doing it again...:P

But how can you know that I am not just one of "Them" with a polished vocabulary???

We Have Our Methods, If I Told You About Them, Then I'd Have To Kill You ...
 

Oh, we know. We know. Enough said.

Not a problem. Our lab is processing your DNA right now.

I Told You That We Would Have To Kill You ...
 

Old School almost fooled us. But, as I said, we have our methods. He was, indeed, one of "Them". You don't see Old School posting anymore. Do you? Enough said.

Mark Padgett: You've given out way too much information. Please delete your post, or we will deal with you the same way we dealt with Old School.