You make the call

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

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.

FIBA, right, well -- who can say?

I suppose I was thinking what I would call if I saw this in one of my games, not what FIBA officials should call. I'm not competent to answer the latter question.

[Rich]

We have 13 people who think an elbow to the chops is worth nothing.

Could some of you come out and tell us what we're (actually you're) missing here?

[Tio]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Spot on Nevada... if a commisioner, supervisor, etc. is viewing this play, the tape needs to support the action. You can't "preface" it with an earlier play. The video and rules will not support you if that is the case.