Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

To him, it is a mountain.

Some reports I've read online claim that this team, and this player as well, have both crossed the line earlier this season. If true, I gather he's already started up that mountain.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Some reports I've read online claim that this team, and this player as well, have both crossed the line earlier this season. If true, I gather he's already started up that mountain.

It only follows. He is in Peru, after all.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Thanks. How'd you do that again?

Oh ya, I've got an attempt to injure. See ya buddy.

Click on the video to go to the YouTube page. Then beneath it, there's a embed button. Copy and paste the code.

As far as the play goes, I'd go for a flagrant foul...especially after seeing how the player landed. There's no good that can happen if that player is allowed to stay in the game. You'd just be asking for a retaliatory foul (I'm hoping the coach thought the better and didn't play the Peru player the rest of the game).

[26 Year Gap]

The game ended as a two point win for the visitors.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

That's what I'm thinking.

Intentional foul at first, but if a stretcher is required, I'm chatting with my partner(s) about a change to flagrant.

By the way, why isn't the Peru player identified in the article?

So you are going to wait to see if the fouled player is injured badly to decide whether to eject the fouling player?

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

On this play, I get together with my partners immediately, tell them we need to eject the fouling player, and then take that information to the table as the injured player is being tended to...no way do I wait to see how badly the kid is hurt. This is an immediate ejection.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

As far as the play goes, I'd go for a flagrant foul...especially after seeing how the player landed. There's no good that can happen if that player is allowed to stay in the game. You'd just be asking for a retaliatory foul (I'm hoping the coach thought the better and didn't play the Peru player the rest of the game).

I agree with this line of thinking. NOTHING good could have come with keeping #40 around for the rest of the game. I was SHOCKED I didn't see anyone from the other team cold cock him. I would be more shocked if he didn't hit the floor himself a few times during the course of the game had he stayed.
MAYBE I would keep him around had he show any type of remore or demonstrated that he didn't mean to do what he did. Instead he just turns away. He put a bulls eye on himself the rest of the game.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Judtech

I agree with this line of thinking. NOTHING good could have come with keeping #40 around for the rest of the game. I was SHOCKED I didn't see anyone from the other team cold cock him. I would be more shocked if he didn't hit the floor himself a few times during the course of the game had he stayed.
MAYBE I would keep him around had he show any type of remore or demonstrated that he didn't mean to do what he did. Instead he just turns away. He put a bulls eye on himself the rest of the game.

To me, he's gone whether he showed remorse or he didn't mean to do it. The fact is he took out the legs of a vulnerable airborne player by pushing him in the legs/butt causing said player to land on his back and neck. Perhaps that remorse could help shorten a suspension, but on the court, you're done if I'm working it.

[NoFussRef]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So you are going to wait to see if the fouled player is injured badly to decide whether to eject the fouling player?

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

On this play, I get together with my partners immediately, tell them we need to eject the fouling player, and then take that information to the table as the injured player is being tended to...no way do I wait to see how badly the kid is hurt. This is an immediate ejection.

You beat me to it.

I would never make a call based on the severity of the AFTERMATH, rather the severity of the ACTION. Just as I would never "downgrade" or go no-call on a flagrant because the player fouled did not get injured.

I certainly agree also, that no good could come from keeping him in the game- HE IS GONE.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

So you are going to wait to see if the fouled player is injured badly to decide whether to eject the fouling player?

Please tell me that is not what you meant.

On this play, I get together with my partners immediately, tell them we need to eject the fouling player, and then take that information to the table as the injured player is being tended to...no way do I wait to see how badly the kid is hurt. This is an immediate ejection.

Fair enough, Rock. Thanks for the wake-up call.

[26 Year Gap]

The ONLY reason to get together is to see who is going to report it since it appeared to be a double whistle.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

The ONLY reason to get together is to see who is going to report it since it appeared to be a double whistle.

Some places get together after anything that is out of the ordinary. Ts and DQs, for certain, INTs possibly. They do it so that all are on the same page, etc.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

To me, he's gone whether he showed remorse or he didn't mean to do it. The fact is he took out the legs of a vulnerable airborne player by pushing him in the legs/butt causing said player to land on his back and neck. Perhaps that remorse could help shorten a suspension, but on the court, you're done if I'm working it.

What I meant was that the first time I looked at it, the player didn't "seem" to maliciously take the player out. (Which is reflected IMO by the reaction of the T official) There are plays where the shooter has their legs taken out from under them in a 'non malicous' manner by players who either weren't athletic enough and/or in the wrong place in the wrong time. In those situations, you usually see the offending player make sure the shooter is OK or something. Not the case in this one. "Good Day Sir, and you have forfeited your lifetime supply of Wanka bars!"

[Ignats75]

I was T in a FROSH Tourney game a couple of weeks ago. A1 had a clear path to the basket and as he was going up for a layup, got pushed in the back so hard he went horizontal and landed up against the wall. My partner was straight-lined on the push, so I came in hard with the intentional foul sign and then immediately without thinking did the baseball ejection sign like the kid was Earle Weaver. I guess my instincts were in full engagement at that point.

Then, I almost forgot to file the paperwork with the OHSAA. Thank the Lord they allow E-mails.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Ignats75

I was T in a FROSH Tourney game a couple of weeks ago. A1 had a clear path to the basket and as he was going up for a layup, got pushed in the back so hard he went horizontal and landed up against the wall. My partner was straight-lined on the push, so I came in hard with the intentional foul sign and then immediately without thinking did the baseball ejection sign like the kid was Earle Weaver. I guess my instincts were in full engagement at that point.

Then, I almost forgot to file the paperwork with the OHSAA. Thank the Lord they allow E-mails.

Nice call. It's nice to see that you upgraded your call from an INT to a DQ.

Plays like these is why I support the clear path rule. FIBA has it - and it's a UNS at minimum, and the NBA has it's version too.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Right, but that really wasn't my point.

I believe the author either a) simply forget to mention that little detail, or b) intentionally kept his name out, "because he's a kid." At the risk of turning this thread into something else, we either have bad journalism, or an ethical question where I don't agree with the author's (or editor's) choice.

So, assuming the perp is a juvenile, you're ok with publishing his name? I agree with the decision to leave it out.