White won the game, 38-37.

Since we covered the misuse of "flagrant" here, does anyone want to breakdown the definitions of "flagrant" in the NCAA, NBA, and FIBA rule sets?

Fighting. Although I'm not sure about that in the NBE.

Flagrant fouls cover much more than fighting in NBA and they have Flagrant 1 and 2 categories based on the severity of the act. Flagrant 2 is an automatic ejection.

NCAA just went to a similar format, this year I believe.

I do not know FIBA's classifications. I'm sure someone else can give a more educated response on all of the above.

Situation #2: "Red, you're OOB ... White ball!"
Maybe quick enough to prevent the imminent foul????

The NCAA has changed their definitions. Intentional fouls are now called flagrant fouls (flagrant 1, I believe) just like the NBA (IIRC).

The kid who put this video together is not, however, confusing the terms. As rocky said, he's just got the rule wrong (and so does this anonymous official quoted in the article).

And fighting isn't required in high school for a flagrant. "Violent or savage" is another standard.

Possibly the most surprising thing I've read in this thread yet.

Except that he wasn't.

Apparently, maybe partially because of being brutalized and intimidated, red has nobody that can score, either.

What size are the two schools, eagle? This is varsity? Can't imagine they are very big, or 34 wouldn't be on the team, let alone on the court.

Good thinking.................#5, I'm going to call traveling so he won't get hammered.

A few years ago, in a FB game, we had such a player. He managed to behave himself for a while, but then shoved a shooter on a layup attempt in the second quarter. Easy intentional for me.

Third quarter, same scenario unfolds, but this shooter is smaller and the defender shoves two hands through his back. My partner tossed him without hesitating.

That second foul, by itself, would have possibly been an intentional in other games; but in context, that kid needed to sit.

His parents didn't agree, however. Dad tried following us into the locker room (I found out later) and Mom called the home school (he was on the visiting team) to complain about how we had deprived her son of the right to play the next game.

NBA:
Flagrant foul penalty 1: A foul that involves contact that is unnecessary. If a player commits two FF1 fouls in a game, he's automatically ejected.

Flagrant foul penalty 2: A foul that involves contact that is unnecessary and excessive. It is an unsportsmanlike act and a player is automatically ejected upon confirmation from replay (FF2 is an automatic replay trigger).

NCAA:
They use similar language compared to NFHS, except intentional fouls are now known as flagrant foul 1 and flagrant fouls are now known as flagrant foul 2.

I'm really surprised we haven't heard from RookieDude on this. I believe he works some games there regularly.

Shocking the parents acted that way..............funny how it all starts at home.

...and herein lies the problem.

I am not being biased, as like I stated White 34 should NOT be playing at all. Why he is being allowed to play I can only speculate that his family are boosters, financially.

I am not going to throw people underneath buses, so I am not going to comment on officials within the local associations that provide services.

unless of course they are in a position of authority over you and they remove you from a position........ then, feel free. :rolleyes:

What kind of coach would condone this repeated thuggery by white team?

The final score of the game was 38-37 in favor of Connell. If I remember the standings right that was Connell's 1st win of the season after playing in 5 previous games.

Both schools are classified as 1A schools (208-521 students)

Connell's student count is: 391

Highland's student count is: 274

Not all the 1A schools in the WIAA District that Connell & Highland are in can field C squads, & Highland only has Boys' & Girls' JV & V Squads for basketball. Connell's only 1 of 2-3 1A schools that has all squads.

I know the coach well as he was a player when I was Boys' Basketball Manager, this style of play was not something he did.

He teaches a well-balanced game, not a game of thuggery.

White 34 being the brute he is, should be wrestling, not playing basketball.

According to school website two of the coaches also coach football. Must be a long football season.

Actually right now, I'm in communication with both the Principal & AD about being allowed to work both gyms equally. I am not being biased at all, even though CHS is my Alma Mater. I ignore the fact that I am an alumni when working CHS games & treat each team equally.

The football team won State on December 3. So a couple of the Boys' games got rescheduled. The Boys' JV Coach is the head football coach, the Boys' Head Coach is one of a few assistant coaches in football.

I consider this taking the path of least resistance and in this case the wrong path all together. Some could say this one play alone may allow you to do as you say - I do not agree with that. Contact like this is not incidental IMO.

Considering everything else, this absolutely not incidental or something that would be ignored in favor of traveling.

According to my state, officials are the authority over the contest, not ADs, Principal, Superintendent or Parent. Now if they do not want to play a game, that is up to them. It would be noted and a Special Report would be filed with the IHSA and they would deal with it from there. And based on the information they can take whatever action they choose. I would not fight them, but it would not go unreported. Because it might be possible that they have been a problem again and they could put their membership or participation up in the air. Just like if I were to overstep my authority I could suffer the same consequences. But when we are on the court in this state, we are in charge of the contest. If that is not the way it is there, then so be it.

Peace

Just out of curiosity, how does Washington classify schools 1-207 students?

You do realize I was being sarcastic??????

Minimum security, mostly for first time offenders

Apparently Gramps of 34 is in corner in mobile wheelchair.

Washington doesn't really use a set number system...they go by percentages of schools. Each classification should have 17% of the schools in the state, so the numbers for a 1A or 2A school change a little every 2 years when they reclassify.

So basically, we have 1B, 2B, 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A schools. 1B runs up to about 90 kids. 2B goes up to around 200, 1A goes up to about 500, 2A goes to about 800, 3A to about 1100, and 4A is anything above that. (numbers are approximations)

Of course officials are the authority over the contest...that's not what Camron said. He said the Principal or AD are the authority over the facility and the school. If the Principal or AD calls you over to the table and says "This game is over" then the game is over - there's nothing you can do about it. You can file reports and call assignors afterwards, but the game is over when they say so.

I didn't know that, but now that I do...:D

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.

Who said they didn't? But once again, it would be reported to the state and then let them take action. They might be seen as overstepping their bounds or violating rules and regulations, especially if they did not go through the right channels. And visiting ADs do not have any authority over a facility. ;)

Peace

And who said they could not do that? I also have the ability to say the game is a forfeit too. So if they are leading and the AD wants to take such action, I have the right to take action too. They can cancel the game, but how it gets reported is also something they have no control over. ;)

Peace

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."

Whew!!!!!!:eek:

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

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:

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....

That is a comment that is hard respond to as you can agree to it, but yet at the same time disagree with it.

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.

Hard Foul, Intentinal Foul ???
 

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.

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

f.i.f.y.

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....

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.

Hard Foul ???
 

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?

Who Said That The Term Was Misused ???
 

Didn't you read my post. I included the terms use, and misuse, and ended the sentence with a question mark. The next sentence also ended with a question mark. Just looking for some answers to some questions.

Is does in my little corner of Connecticut. Maybe no place else on Earth, but here it means an intentional foul due to excessive contact. Every day. All the time.

I am 99% sure they mean a common foul. I've only seen you use the term that way.

I have worked in three different states in two different parts of the country, coached in these areas as well, and know many coaches from all parts of the country due to my previous involvment with AAU.

99% of the officials and coaches I know think common foul when the use/hear the term hard foul. If they meant intentional, flagrant, or anything else they would use those terms specifically.

An example of a hard foul would be one where there is contact on a shooter. Rather than a "soft" foul that leads to an and one, the coach would rather see his players commit a "clean" hard foul. One in which there is a legitimate play on the ball but the defender does not allow an easy shot attempt/made basket. Its kinda hard to describe in words but again, 99% of the officials and coaches I've dealt with know exactly what it means.

Here's the WIAA breakdown:

The WIAA is getting ready to do re-classifications for 2012-2014.

Thanks for the idea as there is a Minimum/Medium Correctional Facility in Connell.

He's A Rebel And He'll Never Ever Be Any Good (The Crystals) ... ...
 

Thanks guys. Maybe officials here in "Rome" associate "hard foul" with intentional foul because we may be one of the few high school associations that use the unapproved (NFHS, IAABO) intentional foul, excessive contact signal. I guess that we're just a bunch of rebels. That'll teach not to use unapproved signals.

Genesis 11:7 ...
 

"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

Let's see? Hard foul "means" common foul, and yet, contact with a shooter is a hard foul? How can contact with a shooter "mean" common foul? Not according to Rule 4. Man, talk about the "use, misuse, or abuse, of the terms". We're not even speaking the same language here. I may be the worst offender in this thread, but, by all means, certainly not the only offender.

We call these guys GFUs. I'll let you guys figure out what that means. :)

True.

I should have said common or personal.

Apparently not. Somebody sent me this newspaper article about the clip:

"Christenson, 32, said that his intention was not for the video to go much further than the small community outside Yakima that surrounds the basketball program. His nephew, Tanner Christenson, plays guard for the Scots.

After posting it online so Highland players could see it, he said he could no longer control the direction in which the video would head. 'Thinking about it now, I maybe could have contacted the WIAA (Washington Interscholastic Activities Association) first, but I wasn't expecting this,' he said. 'It wasn't my intention to single (Vanderbilt) out. If you look closely at my video, his name is never mentioned. What I wanted to single out was the officiating. If they do their jobs, there are no hard fouls and no video.'

David Pierce, a 30-year veteran of the Tri-Cities Sports Officials Association, took issue with Christenson's contention, saying the referees did their job during the game. 'There were no problems and no fights. It's getting painted as flagrant fouls or intentional fouls, but it doesn't have anything to do with that," Pierce said. 'The guy took a camera and jaded it. He didn't show the whole game. He showed six plays.'

Read more here: High school basketball video shows power of social media - Mid-Columbia News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

This illustrates why leadership and supervision are so important. These officials were terrible, and obviously that is OK with their association. 30 years officiating and he sees nothing wrong and actually says that to the media? Keeps getting better...

This is exactly why we pregame to get rid of players who come in to screw up our game. Would you let a HS kid screw up your game?

#34 should have been ejected. He is not in the game to play basketball.

Gosh I get tired of this same meme being played over and over again.

Yes, there should have been intentionals and probably a flagrant foul called in that game. But who is to say calling 5 flagrant fouls would have stopped any player out on the court from committing "hard fouls"?

The officials have ZERO control over what the players do. ZERO. Officials can penalize properly and practice preventative officiating (which obviously was not done here), but ultimately the responsibility lies in the actions of the players.

Have to disagree partially here...we may not have control over what a player does the first time he/she does something stupid. By not calling Intentionals or Flagrants on some of these plays, we do become responsible for what the player is doing. We could have stopped play #5 from ever happening if we had taken care of business on plays 1-4.

We do have control who plays in the game.... ejecting #34. It is up to the kids whether they want to play or sit on the bench. I believe in blowing the whistle and that the players will adjust. Or in this case foul out or get ejected.

There's a difference between discouraging/penalizing/trying to prevent and actually having control over something.

We don't have control over what players do. There's really no getting around that.

This I completely agree with. But I'll stand up to any parent or coach out there who tries to tell me I need to get "control" over the players. That's not my job. That's the job of the players themselves.

True... unfortunately, in this case the fans were right.

The crew was not prepared to manage the rough play. After all, we are the only thing keeping the game fair and enforcing the rules... otherwise it is just a pickup game.

So if the red player in play #5 had been seriously injured on that play (and you were the official in that game) this would be your defense in the lawsuit that would probably take place?

"Sorry your honor, but I don't have any control over what that player did"

Really?

We certainly do control what players do if the earlier penalties that should have been levied would have DQ'd the player. They could not have been left in the game to commit the rest of the fouls....the officials had the control to make that happen and didn't choose to exercise it.

Which is why seeing stuff like this frustrates me as it makes your job and my job harder in the long run.

This is pretty laughable. I'd like to see a case of an official being successfully sued because he/she called a common foul as opposed to an intentional/flagrant foul on a player who got injured.

Show me one, then I'll respond to your outlandish hypothetical.

I agree with Fiasco to a point. Ultimately, we DO NOT control the individual actions of players and they are responsible for what they do on the court. This is why, as I stated earlier, that one of my biggest pet peeves is when people say, "you're gonna get somebody hurt out there."

In a court of law, a plaintiff would have to prove some form of negligence on the part of the game officials. In this video, I feel very strongly that the offficials were negligent (not necessarily in a legal sense but in an officiating sense) in dealing with #34's actions. There is a clear pattern of behavior that they allowed to continue and escalate.

But say foul #5 occurred first or a kid is injured on the first hard foul of the game. This is not the fault of the officials. There is an inherent risk involved in playing sports. Save for the Orlando Brown-Jeff Triplete incident in the NFL, I have never seen a player hurt as the direct result of an officials actions.

To a point, this particular discussion in this part of the thread is being boiled down to semantics, particularly Camron's last post.

I think we can all agree that statements like the one at the end of your post quoted above are pure horse poo and we all grow weary at some time or another of having to hear it.

Does it matter the validity if you have to pay legal fees to defend yourself? This is why I have a NASO policy... there are plenty of nutty parents out there who would do something like this. Make sure you are covered. For $100 a year you get legal coverage from NASO. A bargain if you ever were to need it.

You are right... we cannot FORCE a player to play nice. But if he wants to play, then he better be there to play basketball, not be a goon. Usually getting sat on the bench due to foul trouble or disqualification is a powerful motivator.

Ok...check out Pantalowe v. Lenape Valley Regional High School...New Jersey Superior Court. Found this one in less than 30 seconds of internet searching. Not laughable and not outlandish.

Wrestling official was named as co-defendant in a case where the wrestler was paralyzed, claiming the injury occurred because the official allowed an illegal hold to be applied and did not stop the action. Official and his insurance ended up settling before it went to trial.

In today's litigation-happy environment, you honestly believe that there are no lawyers out there who would take a case based on this video (assuming someone had been injured)?

Now you're just changing your argument to fit the facts you've found. Your debating skills need some work.

Your argument was not that you could find yourself in a potential lawsuit. Of course a parent can sue if they really want to. That's beside the point. Your argument was that you would not be able to successfully defend yourself in the situation brought about by the video in question.

Comparing a case where a wrestling official has the power to step in and prevent a wrestling move from taking place while its taking place is wholly different from a basketball official who stands on the sidelines and watches play unfold from 5 to sometimes up to 20 feet away. I have no control over the players' movements from that far away. I'm sorry, but I'm not fast enough (or prescient enough, even) to know when that type of "hard foul" is going to occur, meaning I can't step in and prevent it from happening, as the wrestling official could have done in the case you cited.

Back to the drawing board. Try again.

Nope...the case revolved around the fact that the official did not properly apply the rules. It isn't a different scenario - it's the same. It's all based on the negligence of the officials because they did not properly apply the rules of the contest.

Nice try on your part, but not good enough.

You keep right on trying to make this about my debate skills. I will simply say that if you honestly believe that there is no lawyer out there who could make a case for an injured player and his family based on this video evidence, then you are sadly mistaken.

You're confusing absolute control over a person's every action with what officials generally call "controlling a game."

If I DQ a kid who commits a flagrant foul, then I'm controlling the game. He won't be back on the floor that night, will he?

And if I call an intentional foul on a kid who uses excessive force, I'm using the tools at my disposal to control the game. Will his next foul be excessive or even flagrant? Perhaps: and then I'll address that, in order to continue to control the game.

I regard this matter as part of good officiating, independent of whether officials who fail to control their games are more likely to be sued.

You can say I'm mistaken all you want, but you've still yet to prove how I'm mistaken. You've produced some article that is tangentially related, but not really. You're taking a case that is about a wrestling referee watching a player put an illegal hold on a player and recklessly allowing that particular hold to continue and trying to apply it to a situation that isn't even remotely related.

If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, you would have to compare that wrestling case to a basketball official who sees a player applying an illegal hold to a players arm, calls nothing, and then that player breaks his arm, all the while the official never blows the whistle.

Remember that an official's action has to be proven in court to be reckless or intentional to be actionable. Show me that same video where you have officials swallowing their whistles on every play and I'll agree with you.

I don't think I'm confusing anything. I know what I have control over. In fact, one of my favorite sayings when I get some line from a coach or parent is "I can't control your players. I can only control the game."

It seems like we are getting away from the fact that these officials didn't do a good job of calling these plays. None of them even had the awareness to discuss upgrading any of these fouls to intentional or flagrant. IMO and experience, there are boards/units/associations out there who have clueless "veterans" working games like this every night. Sad.

I also agree about the possibility to get sued. That is the society we are in.

True. But there's a distinct difference between getting sued (which can happen to you any time you get out of bed) and being in a position where you can actually be sued successfully.

Yes...I have officiated at this school numerous times over the years.

Yes...I know the officials on this crew.

Yes...there is a lot of publicity, about this game, going around here locally and nationally.

Yes...I have been assigned this school this Friday night as Visitors at another school. (On a 3 whistle crew...I am the R. One of the officials on "the YouTube game" will be on the crew as well.)

No...I have no comment at this time.

sidenote: Today's paper shows this school is 0-6.

And simply being sued can be a very costly and devastating encounter even if it is unsuccessful.

True, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that.

Let us know how it goes. I'm pretty interested to read how everything plays out.

Have fun at CB!!

That's not what he is talking about. A good argument can be made that #34 should have been tossed after play #3 in this video. Any injuries he causes after that play would therefore be at least liable for a lawsuit.

Not to mention the very real possibility that such negligence could lead to the first guilty verdict. Whether it's happened before isn't meaningless, but it's not the debate-ending response that fiasco seems to think it is.

Players get injuries all the time in games regardless of whether we call a foul or not. A player can be injured irregardless of whether we call a foul or not. I think we overplay the importance of litigation in these discussions.

Peace

A "good argument" on an Internet message board is completely and absolutely different from a good argument in court. That's what I think you and rockyroad (who is probably right now at the local law library combing through a stack of legal cases a mile high bless his heart) fail to understand.

In your opinion, a case could be made to hold the official(s) in the video liable. That's just your opinion. I've still yet to hear a compelling argument as to how the officials in the video demonstrated recklessness or willfull indifference (not by your standards, but by the court standard).

Not when the injury happens on play #7 at the hands of #34 with plays #1 - #6 preceding them as in this example. At some point, the officials, having not properly addressed the prior plays, will have exposed themselves to more trouble than just losing games.

It may not be enough for criminal conviction, but civil cases have a much lower threshold.

In every situation they called a foul. Now we can debate if a more punitive foul should be called, but we cannot even agree which one of those calls that should apply to. And these are just the calls, not the other situations which would have to be addressed in any court proceeding. Again I think we take the court part too far and almost none of us are lawyers or know what would happen in a hearing, let alone a trial.

Peace

Actually, civil cases still have a pretty high threshold. The plaintiff must prove that the official or officials either acted in a reckless manner and/or willfully ignored a rule that DIRECTLY resulted in the player getting injured. Neither of those things happened in the video in question.

Could a lawsuit be filed? Sure, but I think it's more likely that the potential plaintiff's lawyer would tell their client not to bother. There's just not a case here.

Really Camron?

Peace

Criminal conviction is not even a remote possibility here.

The issue in a civil matter is negligence. And in many states, a plantiff in a case like this would have to prove not just negligence but that the actions of the official(s) were either reckless or willful and wanton.

Of course the complete lack of control of the game demonstrated by the officials in the video could leave themselves open to litigation. But I agree with JRut in that we are making too much of that, and do so in general in these types of discussions.

As Tomegun stated earlier, I think the focus should be on the awful job of officiating these guys did, not from a liability standpoint, but from the standpoint of officials and taking pride in doing a good, professional, and compotent job in the services that we offer.

In a word: bull

just my opinion

Great now you've got to go inject chinese food into this...who's hungry? Snaqs is buying.

Nope...not looking for anything. It became apparent that you can't see the point here - that these officials did not handle these situations properly, according to the established rules - and that opens the door to claims of negligence.

So be it. You continue on, as will I.