Uncalled Cheap Shots

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Boy, saw this yesterday...Thoughts or comments? Maybe this is what happens when they fire CHSEagle?!?!?

Flagrant foul no-calls Highland @ Connell 12/22/11 - YouTube

Foul #1 - INT.
Foul #2 - common foul.
Foul #3 - INT.
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.
Foul #5 - Flagrant DQ.
Foul #6 - common foul.


Edit: I've seen guys like 34 white time enough. I identify them on foul #1 and try to use my voice early with guys like that.

[APG]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

Honestly, while I can see what you're saying here, I'm getting the elephant on this play (the two handed shove in the back) rather than the ant on the play (a blocking foul).

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Honestly, while I can see what you're saying here, I'm getting the elephant on this play (the two handed shove in the back) rather than the ant on the play (a blocking foul).

Yes; maybe I would too.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Yes; maybe I would too.

On that play it would have been a block on Red34 if White 42 was there to play basketball and continued his natural movement toward the ball.

But 42 extends his arms to push 34 before any contact is made and that's why the only foul to get there is on him.

As for some of the other arguments being made, there is no defense of #34's actions regardless of what else was happening in the game. And based on the lack of video evidence and overall body language of the players I find it HIGHLY unlikely that there was anything similar going on at the other end of the court as chseagle keeps suggesting. I'd bet any amount of money that if there was, we would have seen this escalate into an all out brawl.

I think the main points again are:

1) The complete lack of control and awareness demonstrated by the game officials. One of my pet peeves is when fans/coaches say to officials, "You're gonna get somebody hurt out there." I think it's such an ignorant comment and 99.9% of the time is totally off base. In this instance, it would have been completely justified and in many of the environments I've been in, a parent would have tried to come onto the court to address the officials, #34, and/or the HC of the white team.

2) The Connell coach and administration should be held accountable for allowing #34 to engage in this type of behavior on the court. Personally, I have never seen a player commit a series of fouls like the one on the video. Of course we do not have the whole game tape but again, nothing justifies that type of goonery on a basketball court. Maybe something was said to him on the sidelines but after the 2nd foul he should not have been in the game IMO. Since the officials did not take care of business, the coach and administrators should be ashamed that they allowed that to continue, especially since you can see the kid smirking after almost each of his acts.

[Adam]

I agree, it seems to me that #34 exemplifies a failure of coaching. Unless #34's dog had died, this is behavior that would have shown up sooner; either in practice or previous games.

I also agree that if red had behaved similarly in this game, they would have likely broken into a brawl.

Judging by the six plays we saw, I'm assuming white got their a$$es handed to them on the score board. That might explain (not justify) the officials not handing out intentional fouls like candy.

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree, it seems to me that #34 exemplifies a failure of coaching. Unless #34's dog had died, this is behavior that would have shown up sooner; either in practice or previous games.

I also agree that if red had behaved similarly in this game, they would have likely broken into a brawl.

Judging by the six plays we saw, I'm assuming white got their a$$es handed to them on the score board. That might explain (not justify) the officials not handing out intentional fouls like candy.

White won the game, 38-37.

[bainsey]

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

White won the game, 38-37.

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

On that play it would have been a block on Red34 if White 42 was there to play basketball and continued his natural movement toward the ball.

But 42 extends his arms to push 34 before any contact is made and that's why the only foul to get there is on him.

As for some of the other arguments being made, there is no defense of #34's actions regardless of what else was happening in the game. And based on the lack of video evidence and overall body language of the players I find it HIGHLY unlikely that there was anything similar going on at the other end of the court as chseagle keeps suggesting. I'd bet any amount of money that if there was, we would have seen this escalate into an all out brawl.

I think the main points again are:

1) The complete lack of control and awareness demonstrated by the game officials. One of my pet peeves is when fans/coaches say to officials, "You're gonna get somebody hurt out there." I think it's such an ignorant comment and 99.9% of the time is totally off base. In this instance, it would have been completely justified and in many of the environments I've been in, a parent would have tried to come onto the court to address the officials, #34, and/or the HC of the white team.

2) The Connell coach and administration should be held accountable for allowing #34 to engage in this type of behavior on the court. Personally, I have never seen a player commit a series of fouls like the one on the video. Of course we do not have the whole game tape but again, nothing justifies that type of goonery on a basketball court. Maybe something was said to him on the sidelines but after the 2nd foul he should not have been in the game IMO. Since the officials did not take care of business, the coach and administrators should be ashamed that they allowed that to continue, especially since you can see the kid smirking after almost each of his acts.

I have. Last season. None were flagrant, but after the first hard foul and watching him off ball, I had my radar up. In a minute of game play I personally hit him with 3 fouls (the final one intentional) and he was on the bench. He didn't come back into the game.

I also worked a game where the visiting team gave up a huge run to start the second half and decided to thug it up the rest of the game. Three technicals and a flagrant foul later....of course every foul where bodies fly I am lingering and likely closing ground to make sure I'm there in case something happens and, better yet, preventing things from happening just by letting people see my stripes.

I have no problem putting focus on a troublemaker on the court and making sure I get every foul he may commit.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I have. Last season. None were flagrant, but after the first hard foul and watching him off ball, I had my radar up. In a minute of game play I personally hit him with 3 fouls (the final one intentional) and he was on the bench. He didn't come back into the game.

I have no problem putting focus on a troublemaker on the court and making sure I get every foul he may commit.

I guess that's my point. You took care of business and then the coach sat him the rest of the game.

I have seen kids come into games and commit hard fouls. Like 34, usually an oversixed football player who doesnt know how to play basketball. But after the first foul, we as officials have our radar up and will call it every time he breathes on somebody.

Coaches usually get the picture and take the kid out of the game because the fouls are hurting his chances of winning and hopefully because it's the right thing to do. I have never seen the officials AND the coach allow a player to be on the court this long to commit a series of fouls like this.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I have. Last season. None were flagrant, but after the first hard foul and watching him off ball, I had my radar up. In a minute of game play I personally hit him with 3 fouls (the final one intentional) and he was on the bench. He didn't come back into the game.

I also worked a game where the visiting team gave up a huge run to start the second half and decided to thug it up the rest of the game. Three technicals and a flagrant foul later....of course every foul where bodies fly I am lingering and likely closing ground to make sure I'm there in case something happens and, better yet, preventing things from happening just by letting people see my stripes.

I have no problem putting focus on a troublemaker on the court and making sure I get every foul he may commit.

Exactly. A sage guy who liked to "let 'em play" (notice the wisdom) once said, "It's better to have 30 fouls in a half than 10 fouls and a fight."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I have. Last season. None were flagrant, but after the first hard foul and watching him off ball, I had my radar up. In a minute of game play I personally hit him with 3 fouls (the final one intentional) and he was on the bench. He didn't come back into the game.

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

...and herein lies the problem.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Honestly, while I can see what you're saying here, I'm getting the elephant on this play (the two handed shove in the back) rather than the ant on the play (a blocking foul).

Exactly my thoughts, as well. I'm penalizing only the shove, too.