In Southern Nevada we covered the video too. Our desired rulings:

1. Intentional
2. Common
3. Flagrant
4. Intentional
5. Flagrant
6. Common

I'm going by memory to recall the fouls.

Even with "competent" officials out on the floor, there's nothing to say that there were any other opportunities to get him out of the game.

I understand the general sentiment you're trying to get across (get rid of troublemakers), but based on the information available to us in the video, I'm not entirely convinced #34 wouldn't have still been in the game for #5 if any of us here on this board would have been working that game.

I guarantee you these were not the only times in the game where he had contact or showed bad ability. I am sure the kid tried to set a screen or play in the post or run to a spot. Somewhere he was doing something unskilled and I doubt this was the only possibility for fouls. These players do not just have moments and then go back to showing great skill.

Peace

Guarantees sure aren't worth what they used to be...

Not to mention the fact that we have no idea how far apart the fouls were. The could have happened within 30 seconds of each other, with no other actionable behavior by #34 to penalize.

I have been officiating long enough that these players do not reveal themselves on just a couple of fouls. Everything from how they set up on the FT line and during throw-ins can tell a bigger story of this guy. And the tape made it clear the officials did not pay attention to the times they needed to be paying attention when bodies are on the floor, so that tells me they were not aware of the other times that take experience and game awareness to figure out. I have yet to see a game where the jerk of the game only reveals himself when they foul. Even the last foul call on the tape was an example of his behavior and that was not even anything that should have made the tape. That is why I would love to see the rest of the game on film to confirm that or to show how long he played.

Peace

As would I and the rest of us. That would tell us a lot.

I'm just always hesitant about making blanket statements like "any competent official would have had him on the bench" based on a few short edited clips from a 32-minute basketball game.

Stuff happens, even with the most competent officials in the world out on the court.

If fouls #1 and #3 happened within 30 seconds of each other I'm probably going flagrant then b/c the kid obviously did not get the message that would/should have been communicated to him after the first one.

And after foul #1, I'm keeping a close eye on #34 and would have called him for a push on the rebound before the eventual foul called on #42 in play #2. So that's video evidence right there of "actionable behavior."

Anybody who believes for a second that what is on this tape is the only "actionable behavior" committed by #34 or that doesnt believe compotent officials would have gotten rid of #34 long before foul #5 either hasnt been doing this very long or is being a contrarian.

Because a competent official would have fouled his a$$ out of the game long before foul #5!!

Well I get your point of view, but based on what you have told everyone here about your experience, I would not expect you to have the games under your belt to know how to recognize what happens in many situations which is the point others have made. And we do not even know what other plays took place in the game involving the other team which would also change how long the game would be called as well.

Peace

Exactly.

Yeah. Pretty much that!!!

+1

I love how people keep talking about these "edited" clips as if somebody used camera tricks to make it look like #34's fouls were worse than they were.

I'm sure there is tape of the rest of this 38-37 contest that will show #34 moving his feet beautifully, going above the rim to block shots, and gracefully executing pick and rolls.

Let's be real folks. There is enough video evidence there to show how #34 was playing defense and what he was bringing to the court that night. And regardless of what else is on the game tape, nothing changes the fact that in the exact situations shown on tape, the officials were incompotent in their duties IMO. In fact, I'm quite confident that the rest of the tape could only lead to a lower opinion of the competency of these officials as it likely would point out other opportunities they missed to get #34 out of the game or control rough play in general.

But we can keep playing this game and acting like this video is some sort of fictional short story and not what it is. Indisputable video evidence of officials not properly using the tools at their disposal to control rough, and dangerous, play.

Or we could just keep making blanket judgments about how awesome we all would have been at preventing any bad stuff from happening if we had been doing the game, because we're all so much more awesome than the officials in the video.

That's exactly my point. There's so much not shown on the video, yet everyone with a whistle knows EXACTLY what they would have done in the context of the game overall. Frankly, it's just delusional.

I'm not saying it's unlikely that, with different officials on the floor, #34 wouldn't have been in a position to commit foul #5. I'm merely saying it's foolish to sit here and say "Well, this is absolutely what should have happened" when we don't have 2% out of 100% of what happened in the game.

Can we guess what happened? Yes.

Can we assume what happened? Certainly.

Can we say for certainty what happened, and therefore say what should have happened in the overall context of the game? No, I don't believe we can.

But, if it makes you feel better to say you would have fouled his a$$ out, go for it.

I don't think you've been reading very closely. Most posts have not taken that tone at all, respected the fact that we were only looking at a few seconds of a game, and restricted the commentary to what the poster would have done in the same situation.

Are you defending the officiating that we see in the video, or just offering knee-jerk firebacks to the critical comments posted in this thread?

I'm not criticizing the early comments in the thread. I thought they were spot on.

I'm not defending the officiating in the video one bit.

I'm criticizing some of the comments that have come late in the thread that have said something to the effect of "a competent official would have fouled his a$$ out long before it got to foul #5."

It's officiating machismo, IMO, based on a lot of assumption and very little fact.

It's not delusional at all to look at play #5 and know that it is a flagrant foul and know without a doubt that you would have called a flagrant foul on that play. It's really easy, actually. That play needs, nor deserves, any context.

We aren't trying to prove a court case beyond a reasonable doubt, we are having a discussion about a basketball game and the officiating, or lack thereof.

I would have fouled his a$$ out.

I've never argued that play #5 shouldn't have been called a flagrant foul.

I agree with you, but some people think they are expert officials...when armed with a keyboard and mouse.

+1

+1

Well...through hard work and blessings I would be able to get into better position than at least two of them. As far as a blanket statement, I think most of us would do a better job. Some of these are so blatant that intentional fouls would leave our mouths open in shock. On two of these calls (IMO), the officials are two steps below what should have been called - they called common when they should have been flagrant. They are fortunate that the other team didn't retaliate. Or, the other coach could have really been a jerk...and what would they do about it? They already displayed the intestinal fortitude (you know what I really mean) to call what is right. Honestly, how long have you been doing this and have you ever had a situation where you had to throw a kid out of a game? What a Fiasco!

If I told you, I seriously doubt it would have any impact on how you view me, so what's the point?

I'm not quite sure who you're talking about, but I certainly know I have a hell of a lot to work on as an official.

But you know what they say about when you assume...

It's not a blanket statement nor does it have anything to do with me or saying how awesome I am.

It's clear that on the specific plays shown the officials did not close down, did not immediately talk to #34 (other than good naturedpat on the backside at the FT line), and did not get together to at least discuss the possibility of upgrading to intentional or flagrant.

The video evidence also makes it very clear to me that #34 did not come to play basketball that night and that myself and most of the officials I work with would have found opportunities to foul him out of the game before foul #5 took place. I don't know these officials, maybe they are top rate quality officials most of the time.

But on this night, on these plays, they were incompotent IMO. And that's why this video is being shown at association meetings across the country as a training resource.

So you can call it officiating machismo or make all of the flippant statements you want. It doesnt change the fact that what is on this tape is an example, and is being used as such, of incompotent officiating in regards to controlling rough play.

I mentioned this on the forum last season but I had a very similar play to #5 where I let my partner talk me out of assessing a flagrant foul and instead went with intentional. I knew I was wrong leaving the gym that night and I know if I ever see that again, I'm sticking with my call and tossing that player.

I'm all for officials. I've got the back of my officiating brethren. No one is saying that they are better than these officials. Just because you say, "Here is what *I* would have done in the situation..." does not mean that you are comparing yourself to them.

The fact is that these officials did a poor job. Period. It's not really even debatable. That doesn't make them bad officials or people. It just means that in this game they did a poor job.

It's easy for me (and others) to say that they would have fouled #34 out. Why? Because we have been there. We've had "that guy" in our game. Many times. And we took care of him. Maybe not early on in our careers, before we knew any better, but as we gained experience. We learned what to look for to avoid problems in our games, so when we see a guy like #34 he sticks out like a sore thumb and we think, "That's our guy."

I'm honestly not trying to be flippant when I say you need to re-examine your definition of the word "comparing."

Once again, who is saying that's debatable??

So have I. Saturday, in fact, I called two quick fouls on Red #32 because he was getting too physical in the post for my liking even after having a talk with him in the free throw lane. He sat for the rest of the game.

This isn't my first rodeo.

Time Frame
 

Would it make a difference to you to know that these clips were all from the first 10 minutes of game play?

I know a guy like that: never, ever, wants to toss a player (or a coach in baseball). I can understand having a high threshold, promoting participation, etc. But never? C'mon, man!

You have done this before, but you are missing the point again. All I said was I am sure there were other plays out there that would have produced a possibility for fouls. I did not say or even advocate that I would have definitely fouled the kid out before many of these plays. Just saying that not all fouls have to be hard or borderline flagrant/intentional to get a player out of the game. That is really all I am suggesting and since we do not see other situations that would have been obvious as to interaction with opponents, FT lineups and other aspects where a player like this would have revealed more things to make judgments on his overall behavior.

Peace

Maybe you need to look up the word "diplomacy".

You come off as abrasive and hostile.

I hear what you're saying. The majority of the post you just quoted wasn't directed at you specifically.

No one really knows, because when others have asked you sidestep their questions about your experience.

Because the second you talk about your experience here, there are people ready to shoot you down, saying you're not good enough, or you didn't make varsity or college ball fast enough.

I've grown weary of citing my experience as justification for my opinion. It seems that, too often, when someone gets tired of arguing the merits of a specific topic, they turn to "well how much experience do you have?" as a way to end the conversation.

The number of games someone has officiated, or the length of time it took someone to get to a certain level many times has very little to do with one's rules knowledge, or ability to handle stressful game situations.

I can understand and respect if that makes my opinion of less worth to you, but that's just the way things are.

The problem with experience is that you have a lot of officials with one year of experience 15 times and others who have a lot of great experiences in many fewer years of officiating. It's not always a terribly good indicator of ability or performance.

And yet, when the (stuff) hits the fan, I want someone with me who's experienced some bad situations and had to work through them. Surprise is an official's greatest enemy.

I didn't work my first varsity game until my fifth season of officiating and it probably took eight years before I worked a full varsity schedule. Moving to a new location every few years can stunt the progression of officials who are considerably better than me and it certainly affected me. Different locations have different needs for officials, so if it took you 2 years to reach varsity, fine -- if it took you 10, so what?

I would agree with the part of this statement dealing with rules knowledge - many times newer officials are "in the books" way more than some of the experienced officials.

But the last part of this statement is just silly...of course the number of games one has worked will have something to do with their ability to handle situations that come up in games. The more a ref has "been there, done that" the easier weird situations are to deal with.

I was not responding to you based on what you said to me. Not all comments are about you personally. I know that is something you have struggled with, but everything is not because you said it. This is an open forum and often people comment on the general tone or comments that they feel should be addressed.

Peace

On top of that, I can't remember when I see situations like this happen in a preliminary game. The varsity game is "the game that counts" in many areas and when there are situations that show up on YouTube it's invariably the varsity game or the college game that's there.

And I wasn't responding to you based on what you said to me. So take some of your own advice for once.

But that's just not true. Generally, officials who have reached the college level have a greater breadth of experience and knowledge and know the rules better than your average high school official. There's even a greater difference once you start talking about Division I officials.

I have yet to see someone get shot down here b/c they are "not good enough" or didnt advance to a certain level fast enough. Frankly, that comes across as pure BS.

In only speaking for myself, when I referenced people "having not done this long enough" it was a response to you suggesting that these may have been the only actionable plays by #34. I say that because after you have seen enough games you realize that players like #34 and situations like the one on video don't just materialize out of thin air or happen in a vacuum.

Sure there are situations that can't be avoided or that catch you off guard. And sure, a kid who has been fine all game might suddenly commit a dangerous play out of nowhere. Which is why I said earlier that I agreed with you to a point about players ultimately being responsible for their actions.

However, once those actions are committed officials have to respond accordingly. The video evidence here is VERY CLEAR to me that these officials did not respond in an appropriate fashion. And again, that's why this video is now being used as a training resource for several associations that I'm aware of in different parts of the country.

Experience is important in that it is IMO the best teacher you can have. I'm not the most experienced guy in the world and I'm here to learn like most everybody else. But I have had enough experience to know that the way the officials handled what was seen on tape did not rise to the level of competency that I would demand from myself or my partners in a similar situation.

We've all had situations we can learn from whether they happen to us or through observation. These guys just happened to have a bad situation caught on tape and the video went viral. On that night they were incompotent and I have no reservations whatsoever about saying that.

If I am not correct you are working in your first year of varsity and only have 8 years of experience. I can conclude from that you have not been the "man" in many of those games with officials that have more experience than one year varsity experience. So directly or indirectly that matters as I have very few times seen a guy with your experience have an understanding of multiple aspects of the game yet. There are always an All-Star around, but that does not mean that is very common in the officiating world, usually you need a little more seasoning to get that full understanding and even when you get that, you know that there are others that have experienced things you have not. The more I do this, the more I realize what more I need to know about a game to prevent problems.

I think you are totally wrong on this front and here is why. Many rules situations are not learned until you experience them. And the more experience you have the less you worry about certain things taking place. When I started there were things I though of that now I laugh that I even worried about. Also rules knowledge also involves knowing what the rule changed from and why it changed. Many of the things we talk about here have been discussed by rules bodies or state interpreters ten times over and that adds to understanding how the game is to be called or how and when certain rules apply. You cannot read that out of the book and understand why a rule was changed or what the intent might be. And some can work more games at higher levels during the off-season than just what you do in real games.

Peace

The reality is that you have focused on me and what I have said to you, but others see you in a similar light. And this is why many are commenting on your words now. ;)

And there is a huge difference between you and I and I am not talking about years of experience. I am not offended by a single word you said to me in this discussion.

Peace

Really? Then what does it have to do with? Don't you think someone's rules knowledge and their ability to handle stressful game situations is a very large factor in the number of games they are assigned and the level they work? I would think those are both integral factors in advancement. If you disagree, then what factors do you think contribute to advancement up the ladder?

You underestimate me then. Everyone should have the ability to change their opinion of someone. Now stop being your name and answer the question.

The higher you go the more this applies. Calling fouls and violations is the easy part. Once you get to a certain level everyone is pretty much on the same page about what a foul is.

What do you do to keep the sh!t from hitting the fan and how do you respond if the sh!t does hit the fan?

It's also why some are not commenting on those same words.

It's also about the leadership you provide to your group as a top official or elected representative...how to teach and motivate others to lift their performance? The higher the level, the higher the quotient of leading and responding to leadership increases.

Finally at a wireless spot that won't block youtube.

1. Intent
2. Common
3. Flagrant? Could also make case for intentional
4. Intentional
5. Flagrant
6. Common

Juggling,

No suggestions were made, we reviewed them as a group. Most of the folks present thought 5 was fragrant and 3 could have been. 2 and 6 were common, 1 and 4 intentional.

The discussion centered around what the crew should have done during the game (get together, possibly talk to the coaches and/or the players) and what the should have done after.

Update:

WIAA satisfied with school, referee reaction to Connell foul footage

Not sure what this means? Were the the officials contrite as to their handling of the game?

Does the WIAA absolve them or are they saying they handled the game correctly?

During the Connell game, the referees were shocked at what they saw, which is why they hesitated on making any major calls early on in the game.

He who hesitates is lost.

Especially in officiating.

I agree. That's why experience is so valuable.

As I read it, WIAA is saying the officials learned their lesson. Not quite absolution, but they're not pursuing the matter either.

Officials everywhere learned a lesson.

I won't bet dollars to doughnuts, since doughnuts are a dollar these days, but I will bet dollars to text messages* that officials outside of the WIAA that viewed and discussed this viral video will not let similar actions take place in games they work.


* only thing I could think of that costs what doughnuts cost when the phrase was coined

I can MAYBE understand hesitating one time in the beginning, but to hesitate on all of them over the course of the game? That's awful, and the fact that it was used as an excuse is even worse.

Sometimes they really can't help it. Tonight, BV, had a kid with a similar build and similar athletic ability to #34, but not as big. Early second half, trying to cut off the baseline, big collision caused the offensive player, who was airborne, to land awkwardly. He left the game with an ankle injury. As he was helped off, the fouler looked at me, obviously guilt stricken, "My bad."
With 1.6 seconds left in the game, this same kid undercut another player who was flying in to try for a rebound. The flyer crashed hard to the floor and did not get up. I was told that the injured player was just returning to action after suffering a broken back in a car accident. We ended the game at this point and met an ambulance just down the road from the school. I'm certain that this last play was an accident.

The injured player was a teammate.

"The Washington Interscholastic Activities Association has reviewed the incident, and is satisfied with how the school districts and local officials group handled the situation."

Doesn't really tell us much. It would be nice to learn about how the local association did handle it, but I wouldn't expect that to be made public. Anyone here close to this area? Were there ANY disciplinary actions on the officials at all?

This is horrible. I can't think of a worse way to end a game.

A Black Belt, All The Way Around ...
 

They have to wear belted pants next season. That will relegate them to a season of freshman high school, and middle school games.

Think this is better(worse)

I know several officials in that association and have heard quite a bit. There is really nothing the State can do. Bad officiating and judgment is not a hangable offense, and local control takes precedence. Nothing was done by their association at all. Leadership said, "We all saw the video. No need to talk about it.". And they did not. They did assign two of the officials to playoff games. But they told the State they would deal with it, so what else can they say? That association used to be great and develop officials like Dick Cartmell, but for some reason the great ones walked away en masse a few years ago and it has really gone downhill quickly. Those officials would have been removed from Varsity ball for the remainder of the year in our group.

Your organization would have removed officials from games based on a produced and edited video put on YouTube?

Peace

Associations in our area don't assign games but based on the video alone, I think most assigners would have some consequences for the crew..IMO.

The association can get the full video if need be.

If high school associations start removing officials for every game they screw up or rule they get wrong, they may well end up not having anybody left!!!

Sure, but Proto didn't say anything about having the full video and made a declarative statement about what his association would have done based, as far as we know, on the edited video we've all seen.

It is one thing if they get the entire video, but I would hope not based on a Youtube bias video they would not. I could see future games being reconsidered and maybe the type of games for the officials in the future as well, but not taking them off their schedule that season without some review of other aspects of that game. And certainly not from a video where many people cannot even agree on what should have been called.

Peace

Wow. On the clothesline, 34 is gone and nothing more from him occurs. The illegal screen could have been whistled to halt play earlier, but this kid was intent on doing damage no matter what.
The two handed shove beyond the arc is at minimum an IF. Not all are flagrant as many have pointed out, but if these are mostly in the first half, it appears nothing much was said at HT. Players can develop reputations, for example, I will mention a hothead pre-game if I recall earlier games I have had with that particular team. 34 certainly did not all of a sudden turn into a thug.

Many in the "victim" school's association saw more of the video. Doesn't really matter. All you'd see is poor positioning and no other brutal fouls. Somebody asked whether anything at all was dine about it. Associations all over the country used this as an example of poor officiating and what not to do. The Association that assigned these officials defended it, and did nothing regarding it or about it. They assigned post season games to two of them. My association sets standards and holds Varsity guys accountable for judgment, mechanics, and professionalism. Many do not, which is pretty sad.

High. Horse. Hard. To. Breathe.

A couple things need to be put into perspective. This is HS sports we are talking about. Even though I may not like the way the officials handled the situation with more than things than what was not called, I think it is a little silly to act like officials have to be reprimanded for a produced video. And I cannot blame all 3 officials for every call that was showed. We can always pull plays out of the a film and claim something was wrong. And just because they did not suspend the officials does not mean they did not do something about it. Maybe, just maybe they saw the entire video and had some other opinions about the game. Actually many of the plays were not flagrant and in some cases no more than common fouls. I think the official's background could mean something as well like it does in many other situations.

I guess I just love it when people come from an outside view and automatically think the officials should be suspended. As stated if we questioned every video and made decisions based on a produced video, you would not have many HS officials able to work games.

Peace

I know that if I was responsible for hiring these officials, I'd get the whole game video and base any decisions on that. I wouldn't turn a blind eye.

Produced or not, I don't think I'd have a different view of any of those plays in the context of the entire game. They grossly under-called overly physical, non-basketball, plays. Not sure what other parts of the game might reveal that would be of interest...maybe more stuff they missed perhaps.

If you are going to "take action" against the officials I would hope there was a bigger context looked at than a couple of plays.

Peace

Just took a look at another website that showed the red team is 3-14 and the white team is 2-15. Many of the team scores were in the 30s for the white team. Not a lot of skill has been demonstrated.

Also, another article was published that indicates the two white team players have been threatened in cyberspace. youtube has only one angle of course, but certainly there was a lack of fortitude exercised by the crew from what was shown. A relative of a red team member apparently shot the video. It may have been mentioned, but I did not read all one gazillion pages of this thread.