You make the call

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by DLH17

Read BOFARMA's post, watch the video again, then tell me if you still have a PC foul.

I still have a PC foul.

I could watch that play 4,546,389 times and I'd still have a PC foul every single time. And every single time, I'd also give thought every single time as to whether to also call it flagrant or not because of it being such an obvious shot to an opponent's head.

But that's just me.

If anybody starts letting plays like that go by labelling them as an "incidental contact", then in my opinion they're going to be in for a very, very short officiating career. You'll see elbows to the head flying at the other end of the court also, and if you call a foul on one of them you'll have a war on your hands. If it's incidental contact at one end of the court, it had better be incidental contact at the other end also.

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I still have a PC foul.

I could watch that play 4,546,389 times and I'd still have a PC foul every single time. And every single time, I'd also give thought as to whether to also call it flagrant or not because of it being such an obvious shot to an opponent's head.

But that's just me.

If anybody starts letting plays like that go by labelling them as an "incidental contact", then in my opinion they're going to be in for a very, very short officiating career. You'll see elbows to the head flying at the other end of the court also, and if you call one of them you'll have a war on your hands.

I'm good with that, JR. Simple question, (not so) simple answer....but an answer just the same.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by DLH17

I'm good with that, JR. Simple question, (not so) simple answer....but an answer just the same.

Uh, what is so different about the my quote from above and what JR said that you quoted?

I think both of us said it was a foul and we would have to determine if it was flagrant or not.

Your response to me said my opinion was subjective and your response to JR was you are good with that. Hmmmmm. Old School?

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Uh, what is so different about the my quote from above and what JR said that you quoted?

I think both of us said it was a foul and we would have to determine if it was flagrant or not.

Your response to me said my opinion was subjective and your response to JR was you are good with that. Hmmmmm. Old School?

I'm good with JR's because he just gave his opinion and moved on.

Not sure what "old school" means.

This forum is whacky in a way, though, because discussing stuff here with other officials is so much different than sitting down during pre-game or halftime with a crew to discuss/analyze situations.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by DLH17

I'm good with JR's because he just gave his opinion and moved on.

Not sure what "old school" means.

This forum is whacky in a way, though, because discussing stuff here with other officials is so much different than sitting down during pre-game or halftime with a crew to discuss/analyze situations.

And I didn't move on because I hurt your feelings earlier so that equates to me not moving on. You didn't answer before so I will try again, do you officiate basketball?

[DLH17]

Originally Posted by tomegun

And I didn't move on because I hurt your feelings earlier so that equates to me not moving on. You didn't answer before so I will try again, do you officiate basketball?

You do know what happens when one assumes?

My feelings are not hurt. I'm only trying to break down the situation on video while dodging attitude from a fellow official. Subjectivity and humility are actually good qualities - even on this forum.

I'm not here to tell you what you should have on this play, rather, offer an opinion and discuss. Being right or wrong in your eyes isn't important...becoming a better official for having analyzed this, asking questions and reading a wide variety of responses is important.

Maybe that's how someone "develops".

[Da Official]

Originally Posted by DLH17

You do know what happens when one assumes?

My feelings are not hurt. I'm only trying to break down the situation on video while dodging attitude from a fellow official. Subjectivity and humility are actually good qualities - even on this forum.

I'm not here to tell you what you should have on this play, rather, offer an opinion and discuss. Being right or wrong in your eyes isn't important...becoming a better official for having analyzed this, asking questions and reading a wide variety of responses is important.

Maybe that's how someone "develops".

+1

Respectful dialogue is good...it is how we understand differences (of opinion, race, gender, height, weight, etc...).

Thankfully we ALL don't think or look the same!

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by DLH17

You do know what happens when one assumes?

My feelings are not hurt. I'm only trying to break down the situation on video while dodging attitude from a fellow official. Subjectivity and humility are actually good qualities - even on this forum.

I'm not here to tell you what you should have on this play, rather, offer an opinion and discuss. Being right or wrong in your eyes isn't important...becoming a better official for having analyzed this, asking questions and reading a wide variety of responses is important.

Maybe that's how someone "develops".

Yes, it is easy to mention subjectivity and humility on the back end and get someone (Da Official) on your side. However, prior to that, several regulars asked you about your perspective and you kept trying to reason that there shouldn't be a foul. Even your recent response to BNR started off with "You are right" and continued on to rationalize a travel that hasn't really been part of the discussion. It makes you seem sort of like a "Yeah but" official.

But hey, if you want to focus in on what you think is an attitude from me and tell me how I should behave on a forum, knock yourself out.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I still have a PC foul.

I could watch that play 4,546,389 times and I'd still have a PC foul every single time. And every single time, I'd also give thought every single time as to whether to also call it flagrant or not because of it being such an obvious shot to an opponent's head.

But that's just me.

If anybody starts letting plays like that go by labelling them as an "incidental contact", then in my opinion they're going to be in for a very, very short officiating career. You'll see elbows to the head flying at the other end of the court also, and if you call a foul on one of them you'll have a war on your hands. If it's incidental contact at one end of the court, it had better be incidental contact at the other end also.

When did we start agreeing all the time?? The last paragraph of this could not be said any better. Maybe my experience is finally showing off??? hahaha!

Shots to the head as I have stated in a fairly recent post are plays that cause coaches and even more importantly, players to become absolutely volatile! One missed head shot can cause your game to go in the tank in a heartbeat! I would take heat from a coach all day after calling that play an offensive foul, bc I would not doubt myself for one second calling it!

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.