Originally Posted by rockyroad (Post 810090)

I have some inside information here...my son's college roommate is a Conneel grad and emailed us the link to this video yesterday along with some other info.

1)The poster of the video is a high school student at the "red" school and the two schools are fairly bitter rivals.

2)The two white players who are instigating most of the conflict in the video were both on the football team of the home school and apparently there was some sort of altercation between the two schools during the football season earlier this year.

So...what difference does any of this make? First - we can stop complaining about the person not knowing basketball rules - they don't. End of story. Second - the players are both goons and 34 at least should have been tossed. Why they weren't??? Who knows...maybe rookiedude can offer some insight as I believe the officials would be from his association.

Originally Posted by chseagle (Post 810092)

..... they are not actually rivals in the true sense of the word. .

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 810045)

Foul #4 - 34 red for block, 42 white for T. False double. 34 red didn't give time and distance to a player without the ball.

Originally Posted by chseagle (Post 810086)

Looking at those other videos, I have a strong belief that Red 24 & Red 34 had a hand in White 34 playing physically, as they both play as if the rule is "no blood, no foul".

So the finger should not be pointed only at one team.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 810069)

There are a lot of schools where the board makes coaching decisions and the AD at a HS is not always the boss. That is semantics certainly to this conversation. Then if the AD can do this, why not the Superintendent? Why about the Principal? You guys really want some person coming onto the court addressing issues with a coach during the game? What if they do not like how a kid is shooting or turning over the ball? Is that appropriate for that situation too?

Once again what conversations they have off the court is their business. But during the game unless it happens by the bench and does not disrupt the game, that is going to be a problem. Just like it would be a problem if some fan approached the benches or someone came out of the stands and approached the bench (which happened somewhere in my state and was addressed by the IHSA). What they talk about in the locker room or in an office is not my concern. But if you are coming from the floor addressing an issue in the game I have a problem with that. And we have no idea what was said anyway, we are watching clips that someone produced at different times in the game, it is impossible to know what was or was not said at any time. We cannot take some poster's assumption of what was taking place in this entire game.

Peace

Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 810070)

Assuming these fouls are in chronological order in the video (and man, what a rough first half, if so), here's what I have...

Foul #1: Hard, but common. #34 White is certainly on my radar now.
Foul #2: Common. #42 white had no chance to get the ball, but at least he went for it.
Foul #3: The only reason I'm not going with intentional here is #34 was completely fooled and tried to block a shot that wasn't there. (This is not a skilled player.) I certainly won't argue if my partner went INT, though.
Foul #4: Intentional, #42 white. Juggling makes a good case for a blocking foul the other way, but when I see outstretched arms, I have a benefit of the doubt for red.
Foul #5: Flagrant. Had this been a first hard foul for anyone, I'd have intentional, but #34 would have earned a DQ for that one.
Foul #6: Common.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer (Post 810102)

Do you have any other clips from the game in question? If we could see some of these actions you attribute to red, it could give a better context to the game (besides what we've been provided thus far).

I'll also say that even independent of what you may provide, the plays alone do not alter my opinion of the plays in question.

Originally Posted by chseagle (Post 810100)

There's a possibility of sanctions now thanks to the "student" showing only one side of the story.

Local athlete's alleged misconduct sparks outrage | KIMA CBS 29 - News, Weather and Sports - Yakima, WA | - Yakima, Washington 29 | Local & Regional

Unfortunately, as I've already said, only things seen via the video are the actions of one player on one team, what about the actions of the other team?

For every action, there is an opposite, but equal reaction.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 810103)

No one suggested it happen on the court. The AD (or any administrator) could easily get behind the bench.

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 810107)

Well that depends on the bench. ;)

Not sure why we care anyway as officials what conversations an AD might have with their coach. That is not my concern and does not change how I call the game.

Peace

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 810106)

If they issue sanctions without seeing the entire game film, your state has other issues.

Originally Posted by chseagle (Post 810109)

In order for the state to see the whole game, they would have to ask for the game film from either school.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 810108)

As an official, you're right. As a parent and basketball fan, I'd have a real problem with that behavior.