Lol. Still at work hungry before my 7:30 tip tonite.

wAnton

Stepping out of your front door opens the door to claims of negligence.

Walking into the supermarket opens the door to claims of negligence.

Having a pulse opens the door to claims of negligence.

It's just the world we live in. Nothing within this thread changes ANY of that.

Talking about "claims of negligence" and actual negligence are two completely different conversations.

As an expert witness with 26 years experience, I will testify that there are no basketball officials in the whole world that are "reckless, willful, and wanton."
There are, however, multitudes of them that simply won't blow the whistle at appropriate times for a variety of reasons inherent to the profession.

case dismissed

Not to mention the fact that most officials here are in agreement that only one of the fouls in question should have been called flagrant, and that foul wasn't even committed by #34. It was #42.

So, even if you call an intentional on #34 for play #1 and #3 (which almost everyone here is in agreement with), he's still eligible to play in the game.

So how are you going to argue that the officials are liable for play #5, which was committed by #34, and, in our hypothetical, injured the opposing player.

What would calling intentional fouls on #1 and #3 have done more than calling common fouls in those situations?

The answer is: not a whole lot probably, given the way #34 was playing the game.

And that's not even close to grounds to win a civil lawsuit.

My friend told me a story about her friend skiing in NYS. She was run-over by a less-experienced skier, who was injured on the collision. My friend's friend got up with a tiny bit of pain, only to hear: "Please don't sue me, please don't sue me."

In Canada, those two people would strike up a friendship and grab a Tim's after the skiing was over. :D

Comments made on this from local newspaper
 

Here's a few of the comments made to the article posted in today's media source on the video:

There have been so far a total of 14 comments made on the story.

It still gets me that the person that posted the video is now saying he made a mistake & that he had not planned for the video to get this much publicity.

I tried finding the article from ESPN but cannot find anything.

Late To The Party ..
 

I think that I've got the "lingo" down now.

Intentional foul on play #4. A two arm push in the back of the opponent. Easy call. No question in my mind. This is not a basketball play.

Intentional foul on play #5 for excessive contact. This "clothesline" play is closest that I get to a flagrant foul. I wouldn't disagree with anyone who called this a flagrant foul, but I'm only going with intentional foul from my seat here in front of my monitor.

All the others are just "ugly" basketball. We see a lot of this in the small, rural districts that we service. Coaches need to put some "big" bodies in the game, don't have a large (numbers) male enrollment to chose from, and find that a few lineman, or linebackers, from the football team can sometimes do a pretty good job of clogging up the middle.

Milking it? Are you kidding me? Those kids are getting destroyed out there.

These are pure B.S. plain and simple.

Never said nor implied it was. I was only pointing out that civil cases don't require the same level of proof as criminal cases.

No, most officials here would call each foul as you imply if they were isolated incidents....that is how I analyzed each one for the purposes of discussion.

But, in a game, I think most would have had an intentional on one of the earlier ones and then a flagrant on the following one when considered together....when it was clear that #34 had no intention of playing basketball.

I think that the point people are making is about fouls that come *after* a player should have been thrown out of the game —*not just a single play.

If there was a flagrant foul (or several) in a game by a single player and the referees allowed the player to stay in the game, a case could be made for negligence by the officials.

A couple of intentional fouls might have changed the tone of the game a bit (force the coach to talk to his punk-a$$ player and tell him to back off) ... and play #5 was flagrant by any definition. It's a travesty that 34 was allowed to stay in the game after that one.

It costs a LOT of money to defend yourself in a civil suit, even if the plaintiff loses!

Bingo. And if you are not going to play basketball, please take a seat over there on the bench!!

Three fouls in the first half and the kid is sitting down for the rest of the half. Two more and he is gone from the game.

Well I think that would be adding stuff that we have no information on. I doubt a flagrant foul was even called. Now whether is should be is another issue, but I doubt a court is going to decide that based on this tape.

Peace

I was talking about liability as an official in general — not this specific game / video clip.

what kind of response is that?
 

If you saw the video, it was amazing that they weren't responding to the violence. And even if they did play the same way, that doesn't justify anything. Ref needs to deal with that too.

We Went Viral!
 

The Cheap Shots Video went viral. It's on the front page of Yahoo! right now!


It's been up 7 hours with 18,000+ comments. lmao

It's different world that we live in than even 5 years ago...

Front and center on Deadspin, too.

....I can barely wait for Friday night...

just like any other game...yahoo!

I can't wait to hear about the atmosphere!

I hoe your game goes viral too......for the right reasons. Good luck. Make us proud!

Also
 

SI.com

Hot Clicks

"The Dirtiest High School Basketball team in America"

t

I agree completely
 

Only really one flagrant which was the close line on #5. The Oakland Raiders of the 70's would have been proud. The push in the back was definitely intentional. Foul #3, the kid tried to hold up and I wouldn't have called it flagrant, although he did hit him in the head. However, he appeared to be attempting to block the shot but not very well.

Aaaahhhh.....just kids being kids!!!

They will all probably end up being best friends in college!

The guy they quoted...
 

...is an "official referee". That's got to give him some special rights.

I'm going to disagree...
 

Officials can't stop players from doing certain things, but we can remove their opportunity to do those things by ejecting them from the game. These officials didn't take care of business, and their lack of testicular fortitude is inexcusable.

I said it before: these guys did not look like they were up to the challenge that was in front of them, and they proved through their less than appropriate actions they weren't.

If their lawyer...
 

...can get an "official referee" to testify as a witness, who knows what might happen.

I did watch the video, nowhere did I say that #34's actions were caused by actions of the other team, I said that was a chance/possibility.

No, that's bull#$%@. No player and no actions can *cause* a player to step in and clothesline a player driving with the ball. Regardless of what the grandma says, this kid plays like a thug.

And again I've already said that he should be in wrestling, not basketball.

Currently there does seem to be an investigation happening, as well as rumors of the potential of firing the coach (though that rumor is being denied).

There is more happening than what the video shows, considering there are many factors at play.

This thread has run it's course here.

So speaking of experts, here is a nice YouTube clip: Accident Reconstruction Expert - YouTube for your amusement.

From the article:

"[Cole Vanderbilt] a tough kid, but those that know him know he's a teddy bear," Connell coach Oscar Garza told the Tri-City Herald. "My 7-year-old son loves him and lights up when he's around. But on (YouTube) he's the world's meanest, ugliest kid. It's not fair, but I just want him to know his teammates and coaches are behind him."

...it was on CNN this morning...national media still running with it.

We are not all powerful and even if we call something we will be scrutinized. I just do not buy it when people try to convince us that we have some say we do not have. It is just not true that we have that kind of power. The coach decides who actually plays and or he allows his kid to continue some kind of action. We can call all the fouls we like and they can ignore the consequences. There probably was only one call in this game that was shown that could be really seen as flagrant. And if we did not have a produced video claiming that was the case I doubt seriously that many here would be advocating such action in the first place.

I would like to think we have that kind of influence, but I have seen situations that take place and the officials called all the fouls in the world.

Peace

Agreed. Those two were just fouls, even if a little hard. INT for several other for excessive contact.

Our state supevisor says to find the star and find the a$$hole.

BTW, haven't been on much this week. My Ford Ranger XLT burned to the ground Monday morning. But I posted this is a thread before seeing this thread and my initial comment was this may draw more responses than any thread in a long time!

Which is exactly why the coach, as well as the players should be disciplined. :mad:

BTW, the officials don't get a free pass either.

Classic example of horse**** game management. Assuming these are in chronological order.

1. Common foul
2. common foul
3. intentional
4. intentional
5. flagrant
6 flagrant never would have happened because 34 would be gone.

You take care of business early and you get rid of the trouble makers by getting them in foul trouble. In a rough physical cheap shot game you IMHO call everthing to keep it under control.

That crew has no business reffing a Frosh B game much less a Varsity contest.

"His teammates and coaches are behind him," because they know what kind of a bully he is, and they don't want any payback from him if they were to criticize his actions. His actions in the video are deplorable! He stands flat-footed and doesn't even jump, in his feigned attempts to block the ball, because he really has no intention to do so -- he really intended to lay one on the ball-handler.
It's safer to be behind him, because being in front of him, especially with your back to him, is too good of a target. Watching him comment to his teammate after a couple of the incidents really exposes his attitude! The two of them must be a joy in the hallways!

I get what you're saying, but calling earlier fouls intentional sends a message. Closing on the foulers and using your voice sends a message. Calling the flagrant foul when it happens sends a message.

Doing nothing sends a message, too.

I wonder how the officials are feeling now that the video went viral.

I am not talking about sending messages. Just stating that we can call whatever we want and if a coach and player do not care, then they will not care and there is not much we can do about it. Even if we call a flagrant foul there are coaches that will condone the behavior. How many times have we given a T to a player or a coach only for them to say, "I did not do anything."

I had a player used profanity and the big "F word" and I gave him a T. Do you know what the school claimed in a report later? They said he did not use any profanity and they focused on what I did based on an non-related issues with uniforms where we started the T. And I went directly to the coach who did not hear the words and told him word for word was was said by this player.

Coaches and players only behave properly if they have ethics or standards to live up to. If the coach was concerned about anything like that here the officials would not have had the opportunity to do anything like that. I doubt this kid even scored a point in the game as he showed no athleticism or ability in the game of basketball. We can send all the messages we like, if they do not have a conscious or a soul we are fighting an uphill battle.

Peace

Maybe we should ask Ndamukong Suh's mother.

In the old Soviet Union they would have been banished to Siberia:D

To me, this is the story. There are plenty of flagrant fouls everywhere everyday and I'm guessing they are dealt with accordingly.

I'm really puzzled by a varsity crew that passes the eye test, looks like a veteran crew, good mechanics from what is shown, failed to not only make the proper calls but seemed almost blase and aloof without the least bit of concern or any visible reaction to #5 foul in particular. Not one official at least 'closed down' on #5. I'm truly miffed and would love to know what they were thinking.

How is #1 flagrant?
 

#34 moved to the side (If I remember the play) and hits the arm and probably some contact on the body. It was not savage or violent. I think one thing is missing in this discussion. #34 is a big boy and when he makes contact it is going have more mass behind it. Would you call a flagrant foul if this same foul was committed by a point guard on #34?

Why does that matter? Sure, when B1 is significantly bigger than A1, his contact is going to have more affect; but he's still responsible for it.

That said, #1 is, at most, borderline intentional. If that's his first foul, I've probably got a common foul. #3 is easily an intentional. #5, he's done.

I'm sorry but what?

I think what most of us are saying is that when it's clear that somebody is more concerned with using their body as a weapon on a basketball cout than they are on actually playing basketball then we would do our best to control the game as an official and use the rules at our disposal to remove the player from the contest. Regardless of their size or position.

And when it's clear, as in this video, that this kid's fouls are putting opponents in way of physical risks beyond that of what typically occurs in an organized basketball game a compotent official does their best to get rid of them. Again regardless of their size or position.

The fact that he is a "big boy" and chooses to illegally and dangerously throw his weight around is on him.

+1

The rule concerning fouls refers to advantage/disadvantage and the use of excessive or flagrant force. A bigger player putting a smaller player at a disadvantage via contact is still a foul.

It has everything to do with it
 

I never said he wasn't responsible for it. You are reading into my comments more than I intended. But size does play a factor. Answer me this, if the little point guard did the same thing to #34, are you going to call an intentional or flagrant foul on the guard?

I never said it wasn't!
 

Guys, read what I said. I never said it wasn't a foul. Just not flagrant. So are you going to call a flagrant foul on this? Would you call a flagrant foul on the point guard for making a similar move on #34?

The judgment of flagrant/not flagrant is entirely based on the outcome of the play. It is "easier" for a big than for a little guard to commit a flagrant foul. :shrug:

Let me rephrase, the effect of the contact has some bearing on it. If a 90 lb pg tried those things on #34, there wouldn't have been as much effect (except for the flagrant #5 when the shooter was airborne).

If a 90 lb point guard was throwing his body around with such reckless disregard for his opponents, it might take me longer to notice; but yes, I'd be inclined to toss him.

Ok
 

I didn't see play number 1 the same way you did. It looked to me like he moved to try and block the shot. #5 was definitely flagrant. # 1 didn't seem to me that he was "dangerously throwing" his weight around like number 5. or foul number 3.

I do not think most of us are saying anything. I think there is a lot of disagreement on what is and what is not flagrant and on play one I have not seen most advocating for that being a flagrant foul.

I think if we did not see a compilation of plays and just one play at different times, I honestly believe there would be a very different reaction. I think we are overstepping what most of us would do and considering I have very rarely ever seen an flagrant foul, let alone called one personally for contact, I doubt many here would go right to that place easily.

Peace

Which foul are you talking about? #1 or #5?

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.

Here's a good question: you are on the crew, and you see that, and that your partner has a regular foul. Do you intervene and throw him out? You see a vicious and intentional shot to the head, and you partner has a common foul. How far do you take it?

I'd expect any of the crew to be able to throw someone out if they witness something like this.

BAHAHAHA! Not without without my formula sheets!

Hmmmm...I guess you could. I don't think I would just step in there and give the toss "signal". I would get in there and stop my partner and have a conversation with him/her and do my best to convince him/her that we needed to toss the kid.

Now if I had a whistle on the play also, then yes - I would be comfortable giving the toss "signal" right away.

Please Get With The Program ...
 

What? How can it be a common foul when the player was in the act of shooting?

C'mon gordon30307. There's a reason why most officials consider Rule 4 the most important rule in the book.

Okay, Chief, what would you call that foul, then?

"Personal foul?" They're all "personal fouls."

+1

Personal Foul ???
 

Personal foul? Sure. Why not? But it certainly isn't a common foul:

A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor
intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a
part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.

OK Snaqwells: If you don't like calling it a personal foul, and you know that it isn't a common foul, then what are you going to call it?

And ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUeqIXOh54

I have a passion for improving officiating and forcing everyone - players, coaches, fans and parents - to shut their continuously running traps. Of course, I will not explain enough to get any of thee above close to basketball rule literate. Having said all of that, and not even sure if it is relevant, no this crew does not. One out of three passes the eye test and he seems to have his head in the cloud - holding his hand back up before reporting the "hold". If I was a parent, player or coach I wouldn't think the other two could keep up with the game based on how they look so they fail the eye test.

I understand what you are saying, but by that time the officials should realize that kid is not a basketball player. He left his feet once in the video on the last foul. Even then he never jumped to the height of the ball in the other player's hands. He just realized he couldn't get that high and fouled the kid - again around the head.

How many of us that have played the game make it a habit of attempting to block shots without leaving the floor? Staying on the floor is great for getting more torque while swinging the arms, but there is almost no chance of blocking the shot.

The only claim I make as an official...
 

...is I'm competent. I don't believe any officials have powers that go beyond adjuducating a contest, but part of that role is recognizing that we are there to keep order. If a coach decides he wants to have five goons come out to try to turn a basketball game into a brawl, the best I can do, and will do, is call the fouls that will get those goons out of the game. A lot of it may have to do with where I live and officiate, but I can guarantee there's no varsity crew in my organization that would have tolerated this kind of play without ejecting someone. Our officials are not intimidated by players, coaches, crowds, or the import of the game. Our assignors and state overseers stand with us, but if we screw up, we're expected to take it in the chin.

Our society has changed. Ten years ago, this game would have faded to become a local folkstory; today, it's international news. Our profile has been raised, and this crew's lack of action reflects on us all.

So I agree, officials have no special powers, but if we're afraid to use the ones we have, we get games like this, and the critcism and scrutiny that follows.

My comments have nothing to do with fear or not having courage. Just stating that we can call what we like and the players and coaches have to realize the consequences, be afraid of the consequences and take appropriate action or adjust. If they do not do that, all the fouls we call is not going to change anything. Obviously the coach was not thinking of the consequences because he obviously let this player stay. I know players that will commit one stupid foul and they do not play again that night.

Once again, a lot of this is based on your experience and standards as well. If that was not the case we would all agree on every foul called and what the call should have been. Still I see a lot of disagreement.

Peace

If #34 went to the floor the same way, um, yeah.

This isn't physics class —*mass has nothing to do with it. Bigger players don't get to give hard fouls just because they are bigger.

And the 5th foul in the video had nothing to do with two players being mis-matched —*and everything to do with #34 being a punk and looking to go out there and be a bruiser. Look at his demeanor, how he walks about the court, his reaction after the foul. Did he help the other player up? Do you see any reaction at all from him? Nope ... just carries on being a bully.

Agree ... it's totally a non-basketball play.

That is part of the problem, we do not know if they are in sequence. All we know is the guy picked out some plays and considered every one flagrant. We do not see other fouls or potential fouls. There might have been other things that we did not see that could have been called. As a matter of fact we do not see much of what this player did on the offensive end either. That is why I would like to see the entire game and then make some judgments as to how skilled the player was or how much basketball they were playing.

I have called one in my career and there was no doubt it was flagrant (player purposely threw and elbow to strike a screener). I have seen bigger players knock smaller players to the floor often. All I am saying is it might not have been something I would have though much of just looking at that individual play. Knowing the game and the circumstances surrounding the game, I might have had a different opinion. And I am not talking about these plays, I am talking about other fouls by both teams and other action that might have contributed to some angst.

Remember I said the lack of awareness was about how they reacted to the fouls with bodies falling to the floor, not whether or not they called a foul. Anytime I have a player going to the floor on any kind of hard foul, I am in there to make sure the player does not overreact to the contact. Players will do that even when there is not anything flagrant going on. They acted like nothing could happen or needed to be addressed if you looked at the tape. That was my concern more than anything. Even the player that was fouled near the end line could have overreacted to the contact and the officials just seems like he is calling a foul and walking away.

Peace

I didn't see him grab the side of his head. I saw him come across under his arm.

It's kind of like watching a high hit in football and trying to determine instantaneously whether it was helmet to helmet or not.

I'll watch it again tomorrow. :)

You're very quick to ask others to read exactly what you posted and I'll ask you to do the same. I didn't say #1 was flagrant. I said after seeing how the player made a feeble attempt to block the shot on #1, but IMO, made every attempt to make contact with the shooter <COMMA, you did see the comma right?>, his attempt to take the shooters head off on #3 becomes flagrant in my book.

The ball didn't even make it higher than the shooters hip on #3, so I'm not going with the "he made an attempt to play the ball and just happened to make contact" bullcrap. FYI, this isn't happening in a vacuum either. I'm having a direct conversation with the player after #1 and if the opportunity presented itself, I'd let the coach know I had a conversation with his player. If neither took the opportunity to change the situation, then #3 is his ticket to watch the rest of the game from one of the best seats in the house.

4-19-4 ...
 

Has anyone posted this yet? Since these are live ball fouls, I've edited out the technical foul references.

A flagrant foul may be a personal foul of a violent or savage nature, It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. Fighting is a flagrant act.

And this is the reason many will not agree on what is flagrant. This rule gives a lot of room for judgment and interpretation.

Peace

Oldest Trick In The Book ...
 

It's the old, "not limited to", trick.

With the exception of the "clothesline" foul, I'm not thinking flagrant foul on any of these plays. And, on the "clothesline" foul, I'm only thinking flagrant foul, but just as likely to go intentional foul (excessive contact), depending on my mindset at that specific time in the game. Not that I would want to be there, but maybe I had to be there, to make this call.

You still haven't answered who on this board claimed #1 would be flagrant.

I posted the following in a PM to a fellow Washington official, on this forum, that had wished me good luck in the game. We are all "friends" here...so here is my PM to him.;)


Thanks ______...Connell played Burbank last night...both 1A schools. There was a lot of local media covering the game, but they really had nothing to report on or see that was too interesting.

It was 5 min. into the game before either team fouled. Coaches and players were on their best behavior. I heard #34 didn't go to school friday...therefore, he was ineligible to play and was not even there. #42 got his 5th foul in the middle of the 4th quarter and helped the kid up that he had just fouled. I had closed down on the foul...and said "thank-you" when he offered his hand to the opponent.

I did "T" up the assistant coach from Connell (which is the head football coach at the school) about 2 min. into the 4th quarter. I had just called a foul on #42 (his 4th) for pushing a player as he was crossing the key on offense. The coaches had been great all night...no complaining...nothing. But, as I was reporting the PUSHING foul...the assistant coach yelled, "What did he do?"...I ignored him (since I had just reported what he did) and went to inbound the ball on the endline as new trail. As I was running by the bench...the assistant coach yelled again, "What did he do!" WHACK! unsporting behavior, explained it to the head coach (for about 5 seconds) and away we went.

Yeah...probably a little quick on the trigger...but, the devil made me do it.;)

Pretty easy night...Burbank beat Connell by about 20.

CNN has picked up this video

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Well, the three gentlemen working this game are famous now. Yahoo has picked up the story...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highsc...133731387.html

For the record:

Play #1 – common foul
Play #2 – common
Play #3 – intentional foul
Play #4 – intentional
Play #5 – flagrant – absolutely, especially given the others on 34
Play #6 – common

3,4, and 5 are quite obviously "upgrades", especially (good grief :() 4 and 5

I would add that #34 can be seen with a big dexter-eating grin on his face on the FT lane after hammering that poor guy.

Can't remember - did we establish if these plays were in chronological order?

At the time of this posting, the video had 5.5 million hits.

The most popular video, Charlie Bit Me, has had 400 million views.

I don't think I've posted in this marathon of a thread, but I agree with you. 2 and 6 were common fouls, 5 was flagrant, and the others intentional.

I can't believe how nonchalant the officials are during this. On #5, an intentional isn't even called, and non one closes down after the shooter hits the floor. The Trail just puts his hands on his hips and stands there like he has nothing better to do. I close down on stuff far more tame than this.

As big of a turd as #34 is, and how much of a moron his coach might be, the officials did a horrible job managing this game and situation. Foul #5 wouldn't have happened with competent officials on the floor, because #34 would be on the bench already. Unbelievable.

The videos were part of our State Mandated area meetings yesterday.

And what did they suggest a proper ruling to be?

I still don't understand this comment.

How would #34 have been on the bench, based solely on the information we have from the video?

Foul #1, you said you have an intentional. That's not automatically sending #34 to the bench.

Foul #2 is not even committed by #34.

Foul #3 you've again said is intentional. Two intentionals doesn't give you an automatic seat on the bench. So #34 is still out there.

Foul #4, again, isn't committed by #34.

So, #34 is still on the floor. Even if you had been calling the game, and had called what you said you would call in this situation, he's still on the floor.

I didn't say anything about automatically sending him to the bench. If he's a turd like this and the coach isn't going to take him out, find a way to get him out. Usually kids like this will dig their own grave and be done pretty quickly.