Most of us have considered #1 to be nothing more than a hard shooting foul, possibly intentional. But if it was the first thing #34 had done, he's only on my radar at this point. I'm just not sure who you're debating with now, unless it's the kid who posted the video to youtube.

No where in the rule book is advantage/disadvantage mentioned. It's an interpratation that we use use when reffing a game. The size of the player is immaterial when one is using judgement concerning an act that is excessive and uncalled for. #5 in my judgement is flagrant and he's gone. Therefore #6 never would have happened. At least if I'm the calling official.

Yes, advantage is in the rule book. Page 8, just before Rule 1. Also, with regard to fouls, you're correct in that it's not technically part of the wording. Do you interpret "which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements" in a way that makes the distinction more than semantics?

The size of the player cannot be immaterial, because the result of the contact is dependent in part upon the size discrepancy between the involved players. It may not be solely definitive, but it's not immaterial either.

+1 "Size does matter" :cool:

Not sure what you mean about the way I saw play #1. At that point I would likely not go intentional, and certainly not flagrant, but would have said something to him about "playing the ball, etc."

The second foul from #34 I'm probably going intentional given what's transpired. Of course we are only seeing selected plays from the game but I've seen enough basketball to highly doubt that there is any other video evidence from that game that would change how I feel about #34's play and the things that should be done from an officiating standpoint in a similar situation.

Probably is a lot of disagreement on what is flagrant and what is NOT in general. And I havent seen anyone really advocating for the 1st one here being flagrant either. So I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

But I probably shouldnt speak on what "most are saying" was just my personal opinion on what I thought was consensus in this thread was about how officials should deal with #34 and similar situations.


If we saw them all independently then of course you look at it differently. But the video shows a number of plays. If they happened in sequence then again, I have a really hard time believing anthing else is on tape from that game that would change my mind. And even if they are out of sequence I really don't think that would happen either.

I've personally never called, and have rarely seen, a flagrant either but I'm pretty sure I'm going flagrant on #5 unless maybe it's the first in that sequence.

But I guess I'm more trusting the video evidence here more than others. Of course there's a chance I'm wrong but I think I've got a pretty good picture of what happened in that game. And I think most of us know, and are in agreement but the general way of how we would handled it if that's the case.

In fact I think you said it well that what stood out was the complete lack of awareness of this crew.

Rich, you are 100% right. You can call it sending a message or whatever you want, but someone better have control of the game. Most of the time, you want to be invisible. This is a rare instance where you need to be demonstratively visible.

No, we don't.

Yeah but is disadvantage in the rule book? I don't know if it is or not I'm just yanking your chain. I'll concede your point which hinders etal.

Obviously in the course of "normal play" the big guy can send the little guy flying. That goes without saying. Big or small if there"s "intent" to injure it's flagrant. I've called lots of intentional and I had one opportunity to call a flagrant but my partner beat me to it. I like to think my game management skill are such that I could have nipped a lot of that stuff in the bud. You never know because **** happens. Have a good day.

:D

I think hitting #34 with an intentional on play #3 would have probably stopped it. If the officials had gone intentional on both #1 and #2 (not out of the question), the coach would likely have sat him down. These guys definitely missed some opportunities to solve the problem.

I can see calling common fouls on #1 and #2. #3 I would have had an intentional. I'm sure you agree that if you take care of business early it normally (not always) causes things to settle down. If only because the "perps" are in foul trouble.

Yes, I agree.

Sorry, I meant #1 and #3 (#2 is a different player, and a common foul). I would have considered upgrading #1 to an intentional, I'm just not sure either way on it assuming it's the first foul.

All the others are clear cut one way or the other, IMO, and there's really no excuse for not upgrading 3-5. #6 shouldn't have happened.

Okay, here's my take.

#1, INT foul. I don't have any problem calling this, based on excessive contact. However, since it's the first such foul of the game, I could go personal foul but he would be on my radar.

#2, common foul. No big deal here. In fact, you could make a case for Red #20 fouling first.

#3, this is the one foul I have as flagrant. That's an intentional elbow to the shooter's head. In the NCAA, they're reviewing that and he's gone.

#4, an obvious INT foul.

#5, I have an INT foul here, not a flagrant. Yes, he hits the floor hard but the contact is not flagrant. #5 looks bad but the contact in #3 is more savage.

#6, common foul.

I will not open this video without my formula sheets....

Had you seen that video before?

Bktballref, I guess I'm not following your reasoning here. I agree that #3 is flagrant, but it seems like #5 should be also. He makes no play on the ball, simply reaches out and grabs the red player by the side of the head and slams him down. How do you see that contact as not flagrant? A "clothesline" play like that seems pretty flagrant to me.