What Do You Have Here??

[NCHSAA]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

From the OP:

"The official stays with both players and sees B5 extend his leg toward A1 as both are on the ground. It was not a full kick, but was an obvious extension and B5 was looking right at A1 when it happened. Contact was made on the torso/lower side of A1"

Since when is kicking an opponent an intentional foul? If he extends his leg, he makes contact, and the official calls a foul, it's got to be a kick, which is flagrant.

The official ruled that it was not violent or savage enough. And also that B5 was killed during rebounding action, but the official missed the contact. He felt that an Intentional would be good since the contact was not in a fighting manner, and since he missed a big elbow into B5 by A1 during rebounding.

I agree with what the rulebook says however about kicking. But I believe in the manner it happens also. It was a HTBT situation for sure. As for the observer I don't understand where he was coming from about a technical.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by NCHSAA

The official ruled that it was not violent or savage enough. And also that B5 was killed during rebounding action, but the official missed the contact. He felt that an Intentional would be good since the contact was not in a fighting manner, and since he missed a big elbow into B5 by A1 during rebounding.

Whether it was violent or savage has nothing to do with it. Those terms apply to NON-fighting situations. Fighting is fighting. The violent, savage nature issue doesn't exist. If you swing or kick at an opponent and miss, it's still an ejection. And there's nothing violent or savage about a swing and miss.

He has to make a decision. Is it a kick or is it nothing? If it's not a kick, then there's no call at all. But if he calls a foul, it's kicking, kicking is fighting and the player is gone.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't see your point other than stating the obvious. His question concerned a player extending his leg (kicking) and making contact to an opponent.

It does matter. Are you calling the contact or the unsportsmanlike behavior surrounding the contact? You can still have a T in presence of contact if the contact itself was not the major/primary part of the situation.

His case alluded to the fact that there was more going on but was unspecific about what it was or whether the observer actually saw what was presented (as the official saw it) or saw/heard something else.

[NCHSAA]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It does matter. Are you calling the contact or the unsportsmanlike behavior surrounding the contact? You can still have a T in presence of contact if the contact itself was not the major/primary part of the situation.

His case alluded to the fact that there was more going on but was unspecific about what it was or whether the observer actually saw what was presented (as the official saw it) or saw/heard something else.

There was contact during rebounding action that should have been called, but the Lead just missed. The observer also saw A1 fall first when going after the ball and when on the ground wrapped his legs around B5's and took him down as well, and that is when B5 committed his act.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Whether it was violent or savage has nothing to do with it.

He has to make a decision. Is it a kick or is it nothing? If it's not a kick, then there's no call at all. But if he calls a foul, it's kicking, kicking is fighting and the player is gone.

This is exactly what I thought when I read "he didn't think it was violent enough". Just didn't get here fast enough.

There are obviously non-flagrant fouls that can be committed with the leg (accidental trip, blocking, etc.), but in a situation where a player intentional extends the leg to strike an opponent. . . he gone!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is exactly what I thought when I read "he didn't think it was violent enough". Just didn't get here fast enough.

There are obviously non-flagrant fouls that can be committed with the leg (accidental trip, blocking, etc.), but in a situation where a player intentional extends the leg to strike an opponent. . . he gone!

Let me ask this, because I think I'm envisioning this play differently.

Would it be different if the player attempted to trip his opponent as opposed to an attempt to kick his opponent?

Edit:

Originally Posted by NCHSAA

Contact was made on the torso/lower side of A1.

I missed this part, and now I'm picturing the play differently.

Flagrant personal.

The observer is still full of crap for suggesting an unsporting T for a contact foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is exactly what I thought when I read "he didn't think it was violent enough". Just didn't get here fast enough.

There are obviously non-flagrant fouls that can be committed with the leg (accidental trip, blocking, etc.), but in a situation where a player intentional extends the leg to strike an opponent. . . he gone!

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Edit:

I missed this part, and now I'm picturing the play differently.

Flagrant personal.

The observer is still full of crap for suggesting an unsporting T for a contact foul.

Great...I was beginning to wonder why no other posters were seeing it as flagrant.