Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star
 

Both officials appear to signal INT right away.

Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star - Prep Rally - High School - Yahoo! Sports

Embedded for convenience

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bLhOUca9ZAE?hd=1" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="510" width="853"></iframe>

Flagrant foul--a long suspension deserved.

Thanks. How'd you do that again?

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

Horrific.

Seeing it on video is bad enough, I hope I never, ever witness anything like that in person. Truly tragic.

I hope and pray he recovers.

The thing that caught my attention was the fact that the scoreboard said 2-0 and there was not even 2 minutes gone in the game...not even time to work up a sweat. Must of been some bad blood lingering from something.

Perhaps that could be upgraded?

Fouling from behind when a player is on the ground is one thing, a two-handed shove in the back of an airborne player is clearly non-basketball.

that his body became complete limp immediately when it hit the floor and his injury was undobtedly severe.

I'm just wondering if there wil be law suits and the like. I have no idea.

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?

No doubt! What else could we/they possibly be discussing as we wait for the medical assistance...

Found it in 15 seconds with a google search.

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.

Many newspapers withhold names of minors if there could be a pending action. This student may or may not be in that category. I do not have a problem with it either way. If somebody wants to find out who it is, it is pretty simple to do. They did not censor his uniform number. Mole hill.

The Peru player's Facebook profile is not available.

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.

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

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!"

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.

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

+1

If this is a "normal kid" he is mortified and bothered by his actions and their results, without it going more public than it already is.

He's been ejected from a basketball game, not charged with a crime. It's part of reporting the events of the game. I'd publish it.

+1

To leave out the flagrant fouler's name -- assuming it wasn't a simple oversight -- is to say, "He's just a kid. Let's not embarrass him." That attitude doesn't serve anyone. When someone commits an act such as this, embarrassment does and should come with the territory.

To me this is like the play at the the end of the St. John's/Seton Hall game and the official here should have just signalled the intentional and then gave the "heave ho" sign ala Cahill. If that doesn't rise to ejection, I am not sure what does.

It may be a part of the paper's m.o. to NOT publish names in these situations. Down here in FL, some papers DID publish the name of the offending player in the DeSoto incident. I am fine either way a paper decides to operate. But the debate on to publish or not to publish takes away from the incident itself.

I just think it's an editorial decision. One I happen to agree with, and one with which Rich (for one) disagrees. It ain't a big deal, IMO.

Yet. I can't imagine he's immune from charges simply because he was playing a game at the time he purposefully (making an assumption here) injured an opponent.

Easy flagrant. Hope he enjoys his time off.

I agree- it is always easier to upgrade an INT to a flagrant than it is to downgrade a flagrant.

He may have "purposely" pushed an opponent or "intentionally" fouled an opponent, but I don't think he "purposely" injured an opponent.

Of course, I could be wrong too.

The threshold for criminal charges has always been higher in sporting events. You say "purposely injure an opponent" and the lawyer says "minimal contact that unfortunately was at the wrong place at the wrong time".

If this is criminal, then every intentional foul for excessive contact should be reviewed by a DA. This foul was stupid, yes. Criminal? Can't imagine it.

I can't imagine immune from charges, no. Immune from conviction? Most likely. I think you'd have a real hard time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did anything more than try to prevent a basket from being scored with utter disregard for the safety of his opponent.

I could see him being held civilly liable on gross negligence but I think battery charges would be very unlikely.

I also have no problem with the editorial decision not to publish his name.

Like I said, I was making an assumption. I still say there was no real need to publish the kid's name. And Bainsey's 2nd post on this topic was just overkill.

I could see any out-of-pocket medical expenses being the object of a civil suit. I do not see criminal charges being brought.

It's simple, really. A reporter's job is to report. To leave out a key fact is not doing his/her job.

As for the criminality of it all, I think Rich is dead on. If we start filing criminal charges on every excessive contact in a sporting event, I can't begin to imagine how that would change high school sports as we know it.

And how is the name of the fouling player a "key fact?" Really? Maybe we could put him in the stocks when we're done? Some rotten tomatoes may be in order.

I'm done.

Some papers have editorial policies. And it has nothing to do with reporting quality. Contact them and ask them if it is that important to you. Fouler's names are rarely given in any HS game report other than who may have fouled out of a contest. If A1 win a game with 2 FTs at the final horn, B2's name as the player who sent him to the line is almost always absent. They did not black out the kid's uniform number. If a company has a policy, they expect their employees to follow that policy. And perhaps the reporter DID include the name in the submitted story and it was edited out. I don't know. You don't know. Snaqs doesn't know. Rich doesn't know. The boss may not always be right, but he's the boss.

Seriously, what the he!! difference does having the kid's name in the paper make? There is no reason to publish his name - it is not a "key fact" in any way.

Yes, really! It's the reporter's job!

The next time you report to the table that Team A gets two free throws, and they ask you which Team B player committed the foul, tell the table it's not a key fact.

Bad analogy. The player's name is a key fact to the police - people that enforce the laws and record convictions. The media is permitted to publish information, so they do. But they don't have to.

The fouling player is not only a key fact, it is a pertinent one when it comes to scorekeeping. For a newspaper article, it's neither. A newspaper article is not an official account of the game.

Good grief. Apples and potatoes, dude. I know I said I was done, but this is just too stupid to ignore.

How many times does the fouling player get named in the newspaper article?

Your stupid analogy doesn't take into account the fact that it's no more pertinent than B1's foul in the first quarter, or B2's foul in the 2nd quarter, or A2's foul in the fourth. Are you going to bust the reporter's chops for not naming them as well? How about if he notes all the free throws that were taken by team A? Shouldn't he also say who the fouls were called on?

You folks have missed my point.

When you go to the table to report a technical foul, do you concern yourself with the embarrassment it may cause that player? Of course not. You do your job, and report the facts.

In journalism, it's the same thing. You don't concern yourself with the embarrassment of the principles (with some exceptions of certain crime victims); you merely do your job and report. The only reason one would intentionally omit such information is that uneasy feeling that you may humiliate someone, and that feeling has no place here, no more than it does when we report a foul to the table.

You're making an assumption: that the reporter had any valid reason to report the name of the fouling player. Or that he has a history of reporting the names of the players who commit fouls.

You need to back that assumption up before you start having a fit about the omission in this particular article.

Good lord, Snaqs, you're smarter than that.

Snaq's is correct. Don't call it shoddy journalism unless you have all the pertinent & relevant facts. You've stated an opinion based on your limited knowledge of the whole story. You're calling the integrity of a newspaper writer into question without knowing all the facts. Perhaps the writer had the kids name in his original story, but the editor yanked it. Do you know?

Would I have had a problem if the story included the fouler's name? Not at all. Just as I don't have a problem with the name being excluded. It really doesn't matter whether the kid's name is in the story, or not.

How often does a newspaper article name a kid who got called for defensive pass interference that led to the game-winning touchdown? How many times have you seen a rightfielder get named when he drops a can-of-corn flyball which led to the winning run in a high school regional?

It's in poor taste to name kids who make mistakes during a contest. While this situation is not your run-of-the-mill foul, nor were the results, I'm not sure it rises to the level where the offender should be named with no if's, and's or but's.

Yeah, the argument seems to be there are three types of fouls for purposes of naming the player:
1. typical foul, not worth mentioning.
2. Intentional/flagrant foul that causes injury but isn't a crime. Name the b@stard and embarrass him.
3. Criminal conduct. Leave it out if he's a juvenile.

I would change your football example to a personal foul (maybe roughing the kicker on a punt). Do they ever name these players in reports on high school games?

No one besides you is questioning Snaqs' intelligence...pretty much all of the rest of us are questioning yours on this issue.

You keep saying the kid's name is a key fact and is pertinent, but you have failed to explain why it is a key fact. And the analogy you used does not work at all...

Allow me to weigh in here on the criminal aspect.

Speaking from my experience in law enforcement, charges would not be laid here.

A certain amount of violence is expected during a sport, especially a contact sport. Basketball is a contact sport.

Court systems are too overloaded now to begin with. If I laid that charge in my jurisdiction ( Ontario) it would most likely get laughed out of court. Actually, my supervisors wouldn't send the file to the courts.

Frankly, I made the comment without having seen the video, and admitted I was making assumptions.

Very well. How about this? It's newsworthy.

When's the last time any of us have seen -- not just have called, but have SEEN -- a flagrant foul? They're rare, and people are curious about that, particularly when such an act hospitalizes another.

This game did not take place behind closed doors. This was a public exhibition, and no-one's right to privacy is violated by someone reporting the facts.

Are you telling me that, when you hear of a player getting hurt by a reckless act, you don't want to know who did it?

Just for the record, I'm with Rich. It's just a part of the game. Hell, if you're gonna name a coach that gets tossed...like Lavin t'other night....why not a player?

Nope.

If I live in Kalamazoo, Michigan and a player get's injured in a game in Bethlahem, Pa., I may be curious about the circumstances, but I don't "want to", or "need to," know the 17 yr olds name. Maybe that's just me.

And usually that information is in the box scores; but coaches are adults (by age if not behavior) and high school players (typically) are not.

I'm not really saying you shouldn't publish it, but claiming that it's some sort of journalistic crime to omit the name is just stupid.

Yep...that's what I'm telling you.

If I do want to know, I will ask someone who was there. I have no desire to read that in the paper.

Right, and even if I lived in Bethlahem, I wouldn't need to know. If I wanted to know, as has been pointed out, I could find out with about 20 seconds of extra keyboard work.

I didn't say anything about age. The question I posed is about flagrant acts, regardless of level.

High School French Revisited ...
 

Pomme de terre ???

Mais oui!

Maybe you meant "principals" which means something completely different, although it is not nearly as humorous in this context.

Actually, this is a pretty pertinent factoid. Back when I was a junior in HS, we had to raise our hand if we committed the foul. When I was a senior, it became optional. Why? Because the Fed did not want to have the fouler "embarrassed because he did something wrong". I thought it was stupid then, and still do today. But, it leads to what I and others have pointed out multiple times in this thread. Editorial policy is up to the publishers and editors--not reporters or readers. And if they want to run their business that way, it is fine by me. I have a much greater problem with editorializing masquerading as reporting than I do because some kid's name was left out of a story and some guy on an internet forum is upset about it.

Which is all pointless when the announcer tells us, "Foul on number 22...*insert name*...his first. Team's 7th. Number 55...*insert name* at the line shooting two."

Then to add more to the "embarrassment" the scoreboard operator (I know this part is going to get CHS' ears up) puts that foul on the board and we a running count of all the "mistakes" every player as made in the game.

Those announcers and scoreboard operators sure are a "mean" bunch. :rolleyes:

I guess there is really only one thing you can do. You are going to have to write to Dear Abby.

Good catch, Gap.

Though, I don't know what Dear Abby has to do with this. The most productive thing I could do -- if any -- is simply email the newspaper. Instead, I chose to casually mention it here. That casual nature was lost pretty quickly.

Regarding the omission of #40's name, I can see reasons on both sides. The player's name matters as important context in the story ie. does #40 have a history of intentional/flagrant fouls ? I am also fine with omitting a juvenile's name as editorial policy. Beyond policy, I would probably have omitted 40's name in this particular case because I think the severe consequences of this intentional foul were accidental and do not merit further punishment or anger focused on a juvenile or his family. Obviously it was a nasty foul but the medical injuries resulted from airborn physics. Outside of the name issue, #40 shoves Etherington on the way up in the dunk (that makes a difference regarding intent). Etherington has a breakaway choice, a two handed full speed slam or an easy layup. Maybe #40, playing in front of a packed home crowd, didn't like the slam option and reacted badly in a regrettable instant. I hope Etherington makes a full recovery and everybody heals from this unfortunate play.

I see no reason to omit the kids name. It's a sports story. Up here in Canada we publish the name of all players who get game misconduct penalities in hockey for much more egregious acts than this.

I would hazard a guess that many HS leagues and conferences publish their game sheets and reports online. Why not in the news paper?

When I was wearing a microphone for a HS football game a few years ago, one coach said, "I don't mind you wearing that, (as if I really cared to ask his permission) but please don't embarrass my players by announcing the number of the kids when they get penalties." Now, HS practice is to *still* not do so, but I found it funny in the same way. We tell the whole world who fouls in basketball, but we have to relay the numbers by carrier pigeon (or umpire to wing) in football. Just silly.

Full disclosure: I called my first flagrant foul ever (24 years) this season. The name of the player was not in the article in the paper. Nor were the names of the players who committed technical fouls in the same game.

Edited to add: The first and last name of the player in my game is in the box score just below the article. Matter of fact, now that I think about it, I used the boxscore to help with the report (saved me from digging out the game program).

Fixed it for you.

"casually" my azz. You claimed it was bad journalism.

Like altering quotes?

I do enjoy it, thanks. I think it's comical when done correctly and properly acknowledged with a "fixed it for you."

Oh, wait, that's not what you meant, is it? You meant the following:

Rather than this:


Fixed it for you again.

This story is not about some misconduct penalty; it is about a player suffering a serious medical sports injury. The author of the story assumed editorial opinion by associating the foul to the medical consequences with the phrase 'cheap shot' in the lead. Was it a cheap shot? Was it a hot dog dunk by Etherington? Would Etherington have lost his balance without being pushed from behind? Regarding the foul, how flagrant was it? The foul was committed before the dunk but yet it didn't interfere with Etherington enough to prevent the dunk. Etherington lost his balance after the dunk. Emotions run high with serious medical injuries especially when mixed with phrases like 'Cheap Shot'. #40 is a juvenile under the supervision of his family and his school. Do I associate his and his families name with this emotional story which associates (in my opinion unfairly) his foul with the medical injuries? These are the factors I consider as editor and as editor I make the correct call and omit the kid's name.

An absolute cheap shot. It was not a hot dog dunk...not even close. I doubt the player would have lost his balance but that doesn't matter...the fact is he did due to an unnecessary push. That play was an easy flagrant foul...no doubt about it...I think it was a bush league play.

Yeah I never really got that...especially at the high school level, I think just about every kid can handle an announcement stating he committed a foul. If he can't, then he's got a tough life ahead of him.

Or they learn to "play the victim".