You make the call

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I believe deeming this play a flagrant or not is dependent on the situation. If he has been putting lots of crap in your game previously, I would have no reservation dumping him. If this is just an isolated incident or he hasn't absolutely proven himself to be a game interrupter then I will lean toward not ejecting him.

First you write that the decision of flagrant or not "is dependent on the situation."
But in the next breath you state that you would base your decision NOT on the play at hand, but on how the player has previously behaved during the contest!
Are you freakin' nuts?
And what in the heck is a proven game interrupter? I can't wait until JR comes back and sees your post.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by DLH17

A few things:

3. Rationalizing a travel? No. In fact, I acknowledged BO's post that brought the possibility to light and admitted that it never occurred to me. The real question is, why are you and everyone else avoiding that being a part of the play clearly shown on the video clip?

Even if the guy slid his pivot foot a litlte just before contact, I still have a foul.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DLH17

You are right. And, to that end, I say it's not a flagrant foul if at all. Upon looking at it more today I can see the back of the arm contact the defender knocking him backwards.

A new perspective, though, in this case BOFARMA, called attention to the pivot foot of the offensive player. I admit to getting caught up in the action up high and not even looking at the player's pivot. Once brought to my attention, it looks as though the offensive player traveled before he pivoted and "threw the elbow" at the defender's face.

Summary....I do not have a flagrant foul and it looks as if there was a traveling violation before anything else happened anyway.

Sometimes, when the two are close enough you don't know which to call, the travel is the best route. Others, like the video in the OP, involve contact that is severe enough that calling the travel would be counter productive. The defender has position, and the ball handler doesn't just pivot into him, he steps through him while leading with the elbow.

Call the foul. If you think you have to do it, get the travel first but call the contact technical after that.

[Pantherdreams]

It may also be worth mentioning that I've watched the "live" version of the on court action before the whistle, and close ups and new angles a few times in row quickly. If you watch the post shot/pre whistle action the rebound action there are probably 3-4 cases of forearms/elbows wacking people in the chest or across the face or throat on this play. Or at least being swung.

I still have a foul on the play but only because this is only play in the series where it landed on the button and took someone out.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

First you write that the decision of flagrant or not "is dependent on the situation."
But in the next breath you state that you would base your decision NOT on the play at hand, but on how the player has previously behaved during the contest!
Are you freakin' nuts?
And what in the heck is a proven game interrupter? I can't wait until JR comes back and sees your post.

I hate to disappoint you, Nevada, but I thought that Ben made some valid points in that post. Whether the call should be flagrant in nature or not is always a subjective judgment to be made by the calling official. And a player being previously warned or called for similar acts previously in that game(as in "putting crap in your game") should be taken into consideration when making that subjective judgment. It's no different than calling an ABS technical foul imo. And that's where the "proven game interrupter" comes into play also. While I personally hate that particular term, I do understand the context that I think Ben is trying to put it in. He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that he's just stating that we should be aware if that particular player was involved in any other similar non-basketball incidents previously in the same game. Personally, I put that down as being good advice and good game awareness also. If that's the second or third time that player has caught a defender in the head with an elbow, that's sureashell gonna factor into any call that I make also.

I thought that btaylor made some solid, pertinent points in his post. And I agree with those comments for whatever that might be worth.

[Nevadaref]

Ok, JR, I happen to totally disagree with that philosophy.

I don't believe a play in the 1st half should have any impact at all on rendering the correct decision on a play in the 2nd half.

There is no way that a previous warning should escalate the level of contact on a later play to flagrant. The contact at hand needs to be judged solely on its own.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is no way that a previous warning should escalate the level of contact on a later play to flagrant.

Then why bother warning in the first place?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Then why bother warning in the first place?

I will warn a player to let him know that his behavior borders on needing to be penalized. Mostly my warnings deal with unsporting acts and don't involve contact.
I try to refrain from warning a player about violations or fouls. I simply blow the whistle.

I don't see how one could give a warning regarding a flagrant foul. It either is flagrant when committed or it isn't. I would never call an intentional foul in the first half on a player and warn him that the next one would be flagrant. That just isn't right. Each offense must be judged on its own.

If both fouls meet the threshold for intentional, but not flagrant, then the official should penalize both of them as intentionals.

[mbyron]

Just curious: some have said PC, some have said flagrant (and a couple no calls). Presumably the rationale for a flagrant foul here is excessive contact. Anyone want to consider an intentional foul?

For those who think the travel has to be called, you should also be calling an intentional or flagrant technical foul on this play. And if an intentional technical, why not an intentional personal foul if we ignore the travel?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Just curious: some have said PC, some have said flagrant (and a couple no calls). Presumably the rationale for a flagrant foul here is excessive contact. Anyone want to consider an intentional foul?

For those who think the travel has to be called, you should also be calling an intentional or flagrant technical foul on this play. And if an intentional technical, why not an intentional personal foul if we ignore the travel?

Good point.

It's an option that might be used if you thought that (a) the player glanced or looked at the defender before throwing the elbow, and (b) the subsequent contact wasn't severe enough to warrant a flagrant foul(in the calling official's opinion). The punishment for an intentional foul versus a PC foul does more closely fit the crime in that case.

[Pantherdreams]

Not to be splitting hairs but . . .

These are Canadian University players, so like our local kids play FIBA rules. The only calls for fouls can personal foul, unsportsmanlike or technical. Since tech's are for non-contact issues its not a tech. That means personal or unsportsmanlike.

Its only unsportsmanlike if he is not making a basketball play and/or the contact is excessive to the situation. If you look at the play in the context of the contact going on during the rebounding situation (where even the player who ended up getting decked) was tossing so bows and forearms and combine that with the fact that he was pivoting up court to make the play. I don't think it meets the criteria for unsportsmanlike.

So in the end I've still got a personal foul that was well drawn by the defense, and lot of the rest of this conversation is becoming more and more hypothetical and philosophical then pertains to the actual incident.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Ok, JR, I happen to totally disagree with that philosophy.

I don't believe a play in the 1st half should have any impact at all on rendering the correct decision on a play in the 2nd half.

There is no way that a previous warning should escalate the level of contact on a later play to flagrant. The contact at hand needs to be judged solely on its own.

Ok here is an example of what I mean Nevada:

I had a college game, where a sub comes in to replace the starting big man. It is evident from the get go that he is out there to be a "bruiser". Ok thats fine, good game awareness.... no problems. His first foul is a hard foul, borderline intentional. He then proceeds to commit a foul several min. later that was harder than the 1st so we go intentional and now he has pissed off the other team and now at this point has become an irritant and problem in our game. Not several min. later he commits a foul similar to the intentional. He drops his shoulder and tries to bury a guy. Although he doesn't catch him cleanly and it doesn't look like a pure flagrant, I took full responsibility for the play and dumped him and I assessed a T to the other team for inciting and taunting the other team. The game went off without a hitch.

My point is, at what point do you quit allowing this player to do this??? He knew what he was doing and he was out there for some other reason than playing basketball... Managing the game is part of our job and if we don't run the game correctly and with some conviction then our game can and will, at times, go to hell. I never want it to sound like a cop out, but sometimes you have to do what best benefits the game and I know that is subjective, but in my opinion in my situation this player was no longer valuable to the game and in the case of this clip, if that player clipped a guy with an elbow prior or was told he better cut it out, then something more severe than a common foul should be called.

This is game of ours is not black/white, as much as assignors, commissioners, players, coaches and fans want it to be. It's just not. There is so much grey involved and within that grey we have to showcase our talent of playcalling and game management, mixing them well and not being so black/white.

[CLH]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Ok here is an example of what I mean Nevada:

I had a college game, where a sub comes in to replace the starting big man. It is evident from the get go that he is out there to be a "bruiser". Ok thats fine, good game awareness.... no problems. His first foul is a hard foul, borderline intentional. He then proceeds to commit a foul several min. later that was harder than the 1st so we go intentional and now he has pissed off the other team and now at this point has become an irritant and problem in our game. Not several min. later he commits a foul similar to the intentional. He drops his shoulder and tries to bury a guy. Although he doesn't catch him cleanly and it doesn't look like a pure flagrant, I took full responsibility for the play and dumped him and I assessed a T to the other team for inciting and taunting the other team. The game went off without a hitch.

My point is, at what point do you quit allowing this player to do this??? He knew what he was doing and he was out there for some other reason than playing basketball... Managing the game is part of our job and if we don't run the game correctly and with some conviction then our game can and will, at times, go to hell. I never want it to sound like a cop out, but sometimes you have to do what best benefits the game and I know that is subjective, but in my opinion in my situation this player was no longer valuable to the game and in the case of this clip, if that player clipped a guy with an elbow prior or was told he better cut it out, then something more severe than a common foul should be called.

This is game of ours is not black/white, as much as assignors, commissioners, players, coaches and fans want it to be. It's just not. There is so much grey involved and within that grey we have to showcase our talent of playcalling and game management, mixing them well and not being so black/white.

Hmmm, I'd like to agree with you, but I'm too pissed off that you didn't let me know where you were working last night!! But, since its "best for the game" guess I'll concede, totally agree with you.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by CLH

Hmmm, I'd like to agree with you, but I'm too pissed off that you didn't let me know where you were working last night!! But, since its "best for the game" guess I'll concede, totally agree with you.

hahaha sorry man i totally forgot. I work there again tonight.

[CLH]

Eh, I'd like to go but to late notice for me...