The Official Forum
Page 10 of 25 « First 89 10 111220 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Uncalled Cheap Shots (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/85312-uncalled-cheap-shots.html)

Rich Tue Jan 03, 2012 02:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 810207)
You have authority over the contest, but they have the authority to cancel the contest. Sounds like they win, if this is an authority contest.
Not really. The game will be canceled, but they will *lose* the game.

I know an AD who (over a beer) actually told me once he felt he had the ability to fire the official at halftime if he's not happy with how the official is working. I laughed and said, "Good luck with that."

fullor30 Tue Jan 03, 2012 02:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun (Post 810206)
I didn't know that, but now that I do...:D

Whew!!!!!!:eek:

JRutledge Tue Jan 03, 2012 02:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 810217)
Not really. The game will be canceled, but they will *lose* the game.
There was a coach that did this from the city at a tournament not close to them and the coach took his team off the court because of what he did not like about the officiating. Well the bosses suspended that coach for multiple games and the IHSA I believe took some action as well. So they can do anything they want, but it might come with some unintended consequences they did not anticipate.

Peace

bainsey Tue Jan 03, 2012 03:21pm
I posted the video link on our state's fan website. The feedback was pretty close to what you read in this forum, save for this interesting comment:

Quote:
Either way, you have to call each foul based on the actual play. Officials can't make calls based on prior actions.

Da Official Tue Jan 03, 2012 04:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOracle (Post 810009)
Boy, saw this yesterday...Thoughts or comments? Maybe this is what happens when they fire CHSEagle?!?!?

Flagrant foul no-calls Highland @ Connell 12/22/11 - YouTube
This is sickening to watch.....

Of the 6 clips I probably go Flagrant on #3 and #5. Intentional on 1 or 2. (Normal) Foul on the others.

Sad that a 3 man crew allowed this to happen....

SNIPERBBB Tue Jan 03, 2012 04:17pm
That is a comment that is hard respond to as you can agree to it, but yet at the same time disagree with it.

Adam Tue Jan 03, 2012 04:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 810240)
I posted the video link on our state's fan website. The feedback was pretty close to what you read in this forum, save for this interesting comment:
That comment is naive, at best. While only the fifth is likely flagrant if it's the first foul a player commits, any of them could be flagrant if it's a second or third such offense. If you let a player continue to do this stuff, it's a problem.

Personally, assuming they're all in order, I'm having a quick chat with #34 after that first foul. After it's clear he's only playing basketball because his school doesn't offer hockey (#3 in the video makes that clear), a flagrant needs to be considered. But he likely would have gotten the message if the first two were called intentional. If not, coach pulls him after the second one. By #5, easy flagrant call. #6 doesn't even happen.

BillyMac Tue Jan 03, 2012 04:46pm
Hard Foul, Intentinal Foul ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 810166)
We covered the misuse of "flagrant" here.
How about the use, misuse, or abuse, of the term, "hard foul"? Where Forum posters have used the term, "hard foul" are they specifically referring to one variety of an intentional foul?

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may
not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional
fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved
with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically
designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6001/5...942a16cb_m.jpg

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we've been taught to vocalize, "hard foul", when we give the intentional foul, excessive contact signal, a signal that I realize is not an approved NFHS, or IAABO, signal, but it has been approved for use in high school games in my local area, if not all of Connecticut.

Adam Tue Jan 03, 2012 04:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 810262)
How about the use, misuse, or abuse, of the term, "hard foul"? Where Forum posters have used the term, "hard foul" are they specifically referring to one variety of an intentional foul?

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may
not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional
fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved
with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically
designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6001/5...942a16cb_m.jpg

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we've been taught to vocalize, "hard foul", when we give the intentional foul, excessive contact signal, a signal that I realize is not an approved NFHS, or IAABO, signal, but it has been approved for use in high school games in my local area, if not all of Connecticut.
Looks like my six year old when he's trying not to push his sister.

just another ref Tue Jan 03, 2012 04:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 810217)
Not really. The game will be canceled, but they will *lose* the game.

If the home AD chooses to cancel the game because of the actions of the home players, he chooses to *lose* the game.

Adam Tue Jan 03, 2012 05:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 810267)
if the home ad chooses to cancel the game <strike>because of the actions of the home players</strike> for any reason, he chooses to *lose* the game.
f.i.f.y.

APG Tue Jan 03, 2012 05:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 810262)
How about the use, misuse, or abuse, of the term, "hard foul"? Where Forum posters have used the term, "hard foul" are they specifically referring to one variety of an intentional foul?
How can one misuse a term that isn't defined in the rule book? Just because there's a hard foul doesn't necessarily mean there's been excessive contact.

Adam Tue Jan 03, 2012 05:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 810271)
How can one misuse a term that isn't defined in the rule book? Just because there's a hard foul doesn't necessarily mean there's been excessive contact.
Except in one particular corner....

fullor30 Tue Jan 03, 2012 05:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 810260)
That comment is naive, at best. While only the fifth is likely flagrant if it's the first foul a player commits, any of them could be flagrant if it's a second or third such offense. If you let a player continue to do this stuff, it's a problem.

Personally, assuming they're all in order, I'm having a quick chat with #34 after that first foul. After it's clear he's only playing basketball because his school doesn't offer hockey (#3 in the video makes that clear), a flagrant needs to be considered. But he likely would have gotten the message if the first two were called intentional. If not, coach pulls him after the second one. By #5, easy flagrant call. #6 doesn't even happen.

I'd love to see all video of 34 in game. I'll bet he's good for 3-4 brutal screens if he even knows what they are.

I think it's safe to say 99% of this board would have this guy out, or buried on bench by half.

BillyMac Tue Jan 03, 2012 08:45pm
Hard Foul ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 810271)
How can one misuse a term that isn't defined in the rule book? Just because there's a hard foul doesn't necessarily mean there's been excessive contact.
I was just trying to figure out what posters meant by a "hard foul".

Say "hard foul" to any one of the three hundred officials, or 140 varsity coaches, in this part of Connecticut, and they will automatically assume it's two shots, and the ball. It's a when in Rome thing.

I had trouble figuring out poster's interpretations because every time I read "hard foul" I thought intentional foul. Maybe some of them meant an intentional foul. Maybe others didn't. I'm still not sure. Is this just a Connecticut thing, or does "hard foul" mean intentional foul in any other part of the country?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40pm.
Page 10 of 25 « First 89 10 111220 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1