You make the call
 

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rz3ErGNKnBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rz3ErGNKnBU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

This play happened in a semi-final of Canada's "Final Four". The player is Ross Bekkering, the main player for the University of Calgary. This was Bekkering's second foul in the first 90 seconds of the game, and he had to sit for most of the first half, so fairly costly.

What do you think?

I think that the player was fortunate not to be thrown out of the game.

third choice, please
 

Gee, he would up and belted the other player in the face with an elbow.

Bye-bye.

Possession of the ball is not a license for assault.

I watched the game live and 'colour man" Leo Rautins kept harping back to Bekkering being on the bench with two "questionable" fouls.

Later in the game, there was a similar situation (not as severe contact) that was not called. Then Rautins wondered why the officials didn't call it. Good to see Canadian analysts are just as clueless as Americans.

That's probably a valid question if there was a no-call on a similar situation...even if there was less severe contact. Why wouldn't they call the second one also?

The first call was an absolute no-brainer. Not very consistent if they let something similar go.

I agree. He stepped into the defender and cleared out with an elbow to the head - lucky it wasn't called a flagrant.

Player-Control Foul all the way. I love announcers. ;)

Peace

Player control at the very least.

Player Control. Might have gone flagrant.

It could be a valid statement but his argument was that the first call was just a basketball move as the second involved excessive swinging of the elbows. I felt both plays involved excessive swinging of the elbows.

Ah, now I see. Makes sense now with more info. If he thinks the first elbow was just a "basketball move", then he's been a recipient of too many of those "basketball moves".

Just because it was a "basketball move" doesn't make it legal. Great call, great example of announcer cluelessness.

Great call....but I think we're missing the real topic of discussion here, those are some cool a$$ shirts the Canadian officials wear! I'm moving!!!

True, but you'd have to learn FIBA rules.

I think it may be worth it, those are sweet!!

I don't see anyone on this board saying that being a "basketball move" makes it legal, just not flagrant. (perhaps you're referring to the announcers words which I didn't listen to).

I do see an obvious PC foul. I just don't see a flagrant.

He didn't aim, he didn't wind up, he just pivot with his arms up as is the case through the whole game. He just happened to have a defender step into that same space at the wrong time.

In the process of explaining this to an irate coach this is an issue of LGP, right?

Use "verticality". The same concepts apply in both FED and NCAA rules. A player with the ball can't clear out or cause illegal contact within the defender's vertical plane.

NFHS rule 4-44-5 and NCAA rule 4-74-1(e)

"He clocked him with his elbow."

I guess I don't feel the need to explain more than that.

This play was correctly called as an offensive foul.

I agree that we have to think about upgrading this to flagrant. I don't know FIBA rules, but this is a great opportunity to go to the monitor if that is available to the crew.

I love 'em, and I'm old school.

Sorry, I was referring to announcer-speak and was actually thinking along your lines; "basketball moves" has no bearing on whether it's a foul or not; only on the level of foul.

I would only quibble by saying the defender was in that space before he pivoted in.

Flagrant...no way. Pretty good sales job by the defender too. He stepped right up to the offensive player...inches from him. Offensive player pivoted his entire body. Contact was inevitable. Mess with the bull - you might get the horns. Way to take one for the team.

I don't think there is anything to debate, much less make a poll. If you had flagrant - non flagrant as the options then it would be legitimate.

If you are one of the 7 who said "no call" please let us know so I know not to work with you ever.

As an aside... for the Canadian version of the Final Four, there sure aren't many in attendance.

And? :confused:

Isn't that how you're supposed to play defense?

The latest instruction coming out from John Adams is that these fouls need to be called flagrant. This hasn't been well publicized yet, but if you keep an eye out this summer you will hear about it.

All 7 votes came from the coach of the white team...

He's one of those "you have to give him his space" guys. :rolleyes:

From the NCAA memos:

Play: A-1 rebounds the ball and, while in possession of the ball, is closely guarded by B-1. A-1’s arms and elbows, and the rest of the body, move with a similar speed but A-1’s elbow contacts B-1. The official did not consider the contact to be excessive and assessed a player control foul against A-1. However, after the call, the officials have reason to believe that they may have missed a flagrant foul. They decide to use the monitor to determine the severity of the act. The officials decide that the act was not flagrant but declare the contact to have been intentional. The officials charge A-1 with an intentional personal foul and administer the penalty. Are the officials correct?

Ruling: No. The officials are incorrect. In this play, there are only two possible contact fouls. The player committed either a player control foul (personal) or a flagrant personal foul. When the contact is not considered to be excessive, a player control foul (personal) shall be assessed. When the player’s arm and elbow are swung excessively and contact occurs, a flagrant foul shall be assessed.

When I first read this post, I felt certain I had previously read that an elbow to the face/head of the defender was to be ruled flagrant regardless of the speed with which the elbow was swung, but now I can't find any such memo.

Getting old is a real pain. :p

:confused:

:D

I could be wrong because I had the sound off while watching the game, but didn't such a call just happen in the Va Tech/UConn game?

They reviewed it and decided that it was not excessive contact.

The FTs were for a T to Calhoun.

Like A Drunken Sailor ...
 

So what else is new?

According to the NCAA ruling posted by jearef (http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tml#post669990) it is dependant on excessive swinging. This case was not excessive swinging. It is certainly possible they're going to change the ruling but the published rulings do not support flagrant.

Wow. 7 people have actually said they would no-call this play. That's kind of hard to believe. Dude knew the defender was there, had no reason to throw that elbow out there other than to get a piece of the defender - that's a solid PC foul and the guy deserved to have to sit for a while.

Btw - the announcer is the same Rautins who played at Syracuse in the 80's and now has a nephew (or cousin) playing for Syracuse?

Yep and yep (father/son). Rautins played with Pearl Washington I believe.

And Brandon Triche is the nephew of Howard Triche, who played on the '87 Final Four squad.

I definitely think it's the way you're supposed to play defense. And, it kind of makes me chuckle fans and coaches freak out when there is some type of contact in that type of situation. Playing good, "tight" defense doesn't mean a player has eliminated the risk of the offensive player contacting them in some way. Play tight D...be prepared for contact. The defender in the play referenced acted as though he never considered the fact the offensive player would pivot. Come on.

So are you one of the people who said this shouldn't be anything?

And?:confused:

None of that has got anything to do with whether a foul should be called or not. The only thing that's really relevant is whether the defender was playing defense legally or not.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make.

I watched the play a half dozen times. At first, I just didn't see anything flagrant...still don't. Not even sure I see a foul. Just a quick pivot, elbows high but not extended which makes me think he was almost trying to avoid contact with the defensive player. So, based on that, I voted "nothing". However, I love the aggressive defense. Not a thing wrong with what I saw from the defender with the exception he was a bit of a drama queen.

You asked the question "isn't that how you're supposed to play defense"....I answered. I'll reiterate. YES.

Perhaps my point was made in my response to tomegun.

You don't see a foul? Or you don't think the contact constitutes a foul?

Still working it out....here's what I see:

almost simoultaneously, the offensive player pivots forward towards defender who is also moving forward into and has two hands on the offensive player's torso.

it's easy to see why the pc foul was called because the upper, outside part of the offensive player's arm makes contact with defensive player....it's not so easy to see the defensive player made first contact.

hats off to the defender for drawing the foul

I don't mean this in an offensive manner, but do you officiate basketball? That is absolutely a foul!

Last night, a similar play happened in the UCONN/Virginia Tech game. The officials called the foul and went to the monitor to see if it was flagrant - I can't look at the play in this thread from work, but if I remember right it was more contact than the play last night.

The foul last night was an easy foul and the only thing in question was to determine if it was flagrant. Jim Calhoun ended up getting a T for saying something to the official about this.

I'm evolving on this one....here was my most recent reply that you evidently didn't read:

"Still working it out....here's what I see:

almost simoultaneously, the offensive player pivots forward towards defender who is also moving forward into and has two hands on the offensive player's torso.

it's easy to see why the pc foul was called because the upper, outside part of the offensive player's arm makes contact with defensive player....it's not so easy to see the defensive player made first contact.

hats off to the defender for drawing the foul "

Travel
 

There was a travel before the foul. The pivot foot slid, What came first ?
Look close.

Nice, BOFARMA. I'm gonna self check here and hold my tongue.

Now keeping in mind that I've only got that one angle on the call so i can't see how much contact occurs with the defenders chest/face/upper torso before he starts to bail out (and this does look like a bail out).

I think you've got to call a foul on this unless your going to warn the d for flopping. You can't let kids swing to clear off and his eblows are sending kids to the floor then that has to be a foul. I haven't got a flagrant because he's not head hunting and is pivoting to rip through a tight defender who was creating some contact too.

I hate the idea or the comments made by Rautins about questionable calls on good players. You know what, if you build your team around a couple of stars or a style of play you need a certain person to operate then you roll the dice with that player getting hurt and staying out of foul trouble. Refs shouldn't have to feel like their punishing teams because so-so is in foul trouble.

I can appreciate the coaches frustration especially since if you wathced the other quarterfinal games and semi's particualrly the Carlton games there was way more contact in all sorts of ways being nocalled.

I read your post...so what? This is one reason for watching video and learning from video. What you see on your screen is a foul. Drop that knowledge in your tool bag get ready to learn the next thing.

May I suggest you check the attitude at the "door" when entering the forum?

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

Do you think the player laying on the ground grabbing his head is a symptom of flopping?

If we want to be that "technical," I am still calling a foul. But that will be a technical foul which might be flagrant. ;)

Peace

1- At no point during the video is the player grabbing his head.

2 - I've reffed enough soccer kids to appreciate a full sell job as opposed to a momentary one.

3 - The way he falls (back and legs first, followed by head directly backwards) after a shot to the upper torso and head from the side doesn't align enough for me to believe he was being knocked off his spot as much as he was bailing out away from the contact.

But as i said I'm not there in real life and am unable to see how much contact is occuring before he falls back so from this vantage point I've got an offensive foul.

No kidding. I can't believe anyone would try to figure out a way to not call this elbow to the chops.

It isn't an attitude. It is a foul and the only thing to decide on is if it is flagrant or not. Video is used so officials can see plays and a lot of times that includes someone saying, "This is a foul...make sure we get plays like this." You have spent several posts rationalizing NOT calling a foul when most on the forum are saying it is easily a foul. I also referenced a less severe play that happened on national TV last night similar to this one. And yet, you can't accept that it is a foul.

So what is your "developing" opinion? Is it a foul or not a foul? For most of us, we have talked about this, seen videos similar to this and our "developing" opinion would come in the form of a whistle a split second after contact occurs. You can talk about where the defender was and what the offensive player was trying do all day long. After you get done with all of that, you have player who was hit with an elbow - it doesn't matter if he acted after the fact - and a decision to make. The decision you make could impact how the rest of the game goes. What are you going to do?

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.

It doesn't appear that anyone is trying to figure out a way to 'no call' this situation.

It does appear that several posters jumped on it and called it a PC foul.

Recent discussion, i.e. traveling, legitimately compromises that conclusion. And, the video clearly supports the argument.

That is as subjective as the day is long.

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?

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?

Your earlier posts questioning the legitimacy of the foul made no mention of travelling as a mitigating factor. You spoke about aggressiveness and space.

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.

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! :D

Can you imagine if we ALL looked like Sanqwells and thought like Jurassic???:eek:

What a hoot the board would be then!:D

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.

A few things:

1. Beginning now, I will check with you via PM regarding appropriate timing with introducing givens like "humility" and "subjectivity" into my posts.
2. Yes, I intentionally "argued" against the PC foul conclusion. Sometimes it's more fun and makes for a better discussion to challenge a widely held opinion as opposed to back patting and encouraging the prevailing take.
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?
4. My discussion style here may or may not define what type of official I may or may not be. Please explain how asking and challenging discussion of this video clip defines me as an official. Thank you.

5. This isn't about you.

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.

A travel call here, IMO, is a weak call.

There. I've said it. I think finding/calling a travel here and ignoring the elbow is a great way to avoid sacking up and making a tough call.

Those who advocate a travel here -- is it safe to assume you do NOT advocate now penalizing the dead ball contact as a technical foul?

And frankly, I've watched it about 5 times just now and I just don't see a blatant travel, if one is there at all. I see an elbow clocking a defender in the face, though.

+1

You'll also see this same kind of thinking on the catch and crash plays where there's always a travel call (whether there or not) instead of a block/charge call.

And going with the travel call, you're still going to have to make a call on the elbow except now we've upgraded it to a technical foul.

Actually, I think this is taking that line of thinking and stepping it up a notch or six.

Frequently on the catch, travel, crash play, the player with the ball is surprised and legitimately does travel prior to contact. I've called this myself when there's no doubt it's a travel. Of course, the crash isn't borderline flagrant like this elbow, either and there's no need to reach in and get a technical foul on the dead ball contact.

I just don't know if this player legitimately traveled. I mean, going back to a replay and watching it 5-6 times looking for a microscopic slide of the pivot foot just doesn't seem to be within the spirit of, well, anything.

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! :eek:
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

Teeth :D

They are using a text based browser...no video support.

Make it 12. I should have restrained from voting until after this discussion progressed. When I first watched the video, it seemed as though the back of the forearm got the defender moreso than an elbow.

You would make Lester Hayes and Deion Sanders proud. :)

Wow, you just made my day! :D

What would be a common foul that I'm ignoring because the ball is dead due to the traveling violation.

You just saved me typing. How is this not a foul of any degree?

And that would be a terrible call. Period.