Call or No-call?

[Skarecrow]

Originally Posted by hoopguy

I have a flagrant.

Can somebody give the proper mechanics and penaties for a live ball flagrant such as this? I am not 100% sure.

Definitely flagrant....In slow motion, it shows her lower, raise and deliver a violent elbow....maybe the ref didn't see it as clear (no slo-mo for him), but still flagrant in my book.....

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Skarecrow

Definitely flagrant....In slow motion, it shows her lower, raise and deliver a violent elbow....maybe the ref didn't see it as clear (no slo-mo for him), but still flagrant in my book.....

Not sure if I agree that this is flagrant without being there. It is hard to tell if the girl is tied up (either her being held or the ball being held), so part of the violent contact could be due just to the momentum of freeing herself from that. Just because the outcome/impact is violent doesn't mean the act necessarily is.

Follow-on question to all, what do you do if you have a whistle for a hold on black and just as you have your whistle, then white comes out with this elbow? Are you calling a technical or flagrant?

[bbcof83]

She definitely traveled before the elbow. But she was fouled on the reach in also so I'd try to get that one first. If you call the reach on black then you can have a dead ball technical or flagrant. Didn't look ejection worthy to me in real time.

If the travel and foul on black are missed, you would have to go PC on this.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

She definitely traveled before the elbow. But she was fouled on the reach in also so I'd try to get that one first. If you call the reach on black then you can have a dead ball technical or flagrant. Didn't look ejection worthy to me in real time.

If the travel and foul on black are missed, you would have to go PC on this.

Did you, as an official, actually write "reach in" and "reach"?

[fullor30]

I don't think it's a flagrant. What pops out to me is why didn't trail stay with injured player? he just abandoned her as if nothing happened. I may not have stopped play, yet I'd stay back and monitor the situation. If the downed player was acting, she did a darn good job. Sure looked very serious on clip. Wondering how long they would have let play continue with an apparent seriously injured player.

C stayed home and had a great look at it, still nothing. I'm surprised with four eyeballs both trail and c passed.

I've seen the opposite of this in a boys sectional final, where A has a break away with numbers and B goes down in backcourt. Trail immediately blows whistle and it was a twisted ankle that didn't require a sub.

I'm assuming this was a college game? Additionally, I'm getting out of dodge and staying away from coach. Common sense, I think I learned that my first year officiating.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Follow-on question to all, what do you do if you have a whistle for a hold on black and just as you have your whistle, then white comes out with this elbow? Are you calling a technical or flagrant?

You do know that you can have a flagrant technical foul, right?

If the elbow came after the foul call on the black player, then your choices are:
1) intentional technical foul
2) flagrant technical foul.

You can't call a personal foul or a straight technical foul because dead-ball contact was involved.

Note that's using NFHS rules. The NCAA rules are different, I think.

[jearef]

Focusing only on the elbow, I have an intentional foul at the absolute minimum. Hard to understand how anyone could argue that this was not "excessive contact". I also agree that in slow-mo, it looks flagrant. Not sure I would have picked that up in real time.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by jearef

Focusing only on the elbow, I have an intentional foul at the absolute minimum. Hard to understand how anyone could argue that this was not "excessive contact". I also agree that in slow-mo, it looks flagrant. Not sure I would have picked that up in real time.

How would you compare this excessive contact to a 140lb point guard getting completely pancaked by a "slightly" illegal screen set by a 250lb center? I say "slightly" so you assume that maybe the screener was just slightly leaning, but it isn't like he stuck an arm out and clotheslined the kid. Are you calling an intentional there? Just food for thought..

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You do know that you can have a flagrant technical foul, right?

If the elbow came after the foul call on the black player, then your choices are:
1) intentional technical foul
2) flagrant technical foul.

You can't call a personal foul or a straight technical foul because dead-ball contact was involved.

Note that's using NFHS rules. The NCAA rules are different, I think.

Yes I do thanks for clarifying JR, I did not spell it out as clearly. The point I was trying to make is that if you are not going to call either an intentional technical or flagrant technical in this case, it is tough to argue that you have an intentional/flagrant while the ball is live.

[jallen]

It seems many of you have not noticed that this is a Canadian university game played under FIBA rules. You CANNOT have a technical foul if contact occurs, it must be a personal foul, common or flagrant but not a T. There is no such thing as intentional fouls in FIBA, it is unsportsman. The fact there was no call at any point on this play is interesting. However, the elbow to the head should have been called. For sure a personal and if deemed excessive then an unsportsman which is not an ejection but two and the ball. If it was deemed and it wasn't by the ref for some reason, on purpose and with intent, then it must be a flagrant personal and an ejection. The signal for this is both arms raised in a U position. In FIBA, even if the whistle had gone and you have contact between players in a dead ball, it cannot be a T. This is unlike other rules which dead ball contact is a T

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by fullor30

I don't think it's a flagrant. What pops out to me is why didn't trail stay with injured player? he just abandoned her as if nothing happened. I may not have stopped play, yet I'd monitor the situation. If the downed player was acting, she did a darn good job. Sure looked very serious on clip. Wondering how long they would have let play continue with an apparent comotose player.

I've seen the opposite of this in a boys sectional final, where A has a break away with numbers and B goes down in backcourt. Trail immediately blows whistle and it was a twisted ankle that didn't require a sub.

In a sectional final? UGH! Was it my buddy who thinks I call too many fouls for one team?

[jallen]

Nothing worse than seeing a player get injured. it appears the injured girl had committed a foul but very hard to say for sure. The ref was there and if a foul was committed it had to be called (probably holding) The offensive girl knew she was there as she just broke away from the alleged hold. However, you must always be in control of your body, you do not have the right to pivot if the defender is there legally. Her elbow was well into the defender's space and a foul had to be called. When referees do not make calls, players take care of business and I think that is what happened here. Rough play must be dealt with by the officials or else players will do what we see. Was this an isolated incident within the game or was this a final buildup to a lack of calls?