Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

[de la hoops]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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

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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bainsey

We covered the misuse of "flagrant" here.

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.



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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.



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.

[APG]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

White won the game, 38-37.

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

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.