Uncalled Cheap Shots

[bainsey]

I posted the video link on our state's fan website. The feedback was pretty close to what you read in this forum, save for this interesting comment:

Either way, you have to call each foul based on the actual play. Officials can't make calls based on prior actions.

[SNIPERBBB]

That is a comment that is hard respond to as you can agree to it, but yet at the same time disagree with it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

I posted the video link on our state's fan website. The feedback was pretty close to what you read in this forum, save for this interesting comment:

That comment is naive, at best. While only the fifth is likely flagrant if it's the first foul a player commits, any of them could be flagrant if it's a second or third such offense. If you let a player continue to do this stuff, it's a problem.

Personally, assuming they're all in order, I'm having a quick chat with #34 after that first foul. After it's clear he's only playing basketball because his school doesn't offer hockey (#3 in the video makes that clear), a flagrant needs to be considered. But he likely would have gotten the message if the first two were called intentional. If not, coach pulls him after the second one. By #5, easy flagrant call. #6 doesn't even happen.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That comment is naive, at best. While only the fifth is likely flagrant if it's the first foul a player commits, any of them could be flagrant if it's a second or third such offense. If you let a player continue to do this stuff, it's a problem.

Personally, assuming they're all in order, I'm having a quick chat with #34 after that first foul. After it's clear he's only playing basketball because his school doesn't offer hockey (#3 in the video makes that clear), a flagrant needs to be considered. But he likely would have gotten the message if the first two were called intentional. If not, coach pulls him after the second one. By #5, easy flagrant call. #6 doesn't even happen.

I'd love to see all video of 34 in game. I'll bet he's good for 3-4 brutal screens if he even knows what they are.

I think it's safe to say 99% of this board would have this guy out, or buried on bench by half.

[mj]

Originally Posted by fullor30

I'd love to see all video of 34 in game. I'll bet he's good for 3-4 brutal screens if he even knows what they are.

I think it's safe to say 99% of this board would have this guy out, or buried on bench by half.

We call these guys GFUs. I'll let you guys figure out what that means.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That comment is naive, at best. While only the fifth is likely flagrant if it's the first foul a player commits, any of them could be flagrant if it's a second or third such offense. If you let a player continue to do this stuff, it's a problem.

Personally, assuming they're all in order, I'm having a quick chat with #34 after that first foul. After it's clear he's only playing basketball because his school doesn't offer hockey (#3 in the video makes that clear), a flagrant needs to be considered. But he likely would have gotten the message if the first two were called intentional. If not, coach pulls him after the second one. By #5, easy flagrant call. #6 doesn't even happen.

Apparently not. Somebody sent me this newspaper article about the clip:

"Christenson, 32, said that his intention was not for the video to go much further than the small community outside Yakima that surrounds the basketball program. His nephew, Tanner Christenson, plays guard for the Scots.

After posting it online so Highland players could see it, he said he could no longer control the direction in which the video would head. 'Thinking about it now, I maybe could have contacted the WIAA (Washington Interscholastic Activities Association) first, but I wasn't expecting this,' he said. 'It wasn't my intention to single (Vanderbilt) out. If you look closely at my video, his name is never mentioned. What I wanted to single out was the officiating. If they do their jobs, there are no hard fouls and no video.'

David Pierce, a 30-year veteran of the Tri-Cities Sports Officials Association, took issue with Christenson's contention, saying the referees did their job during the game. 'There were no problems and no fights. It's getting painted as flagrant fouls or intentional fouls, but it doesn't have anything to do with that," Pierce said. 'The guy took a camera and jaded it. He didn't show the whole game. He showed six plays.'

Read more here: High school basketball video shows power of social media - Mid-Columbia News | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

This illustrates why leadership and supervision are so important. These officials were terrible, and obviously that is OK with their association. 30 years officiating and he sees nothing wrong and actually says that to the media? Keeps getting better...

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

What I wanted to single out was the officiating. If they do their jobs, there are no hard fouls and no video.'

Gosh I get tired of this same meme being played over and over again.

Yes, there should have been intentionals and probably a flagrant foul called in that game. But who is to say calling 5 flagrant fouls would have stopped any player out on the court from committing "hard fouls"?

The officials have ZERO control over what the players do. ZERO. Officials can penalize properly and practice preventative officiating (which obviously was not done here), but ultimately the responsibility lies in the actions of the players.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Gosh I get tired of this same meme being played over and over again.

Yes, there should have been intentionals and probably a flagrant foul called in that game. But who is to say calling 5 flagrant fouls would have stopped any player out on the court from committing "hard fouls"?

The officials have ZERO control over what the players do. ZERO. Officials can penalize properly and practice preventative officiating (which obviously was not done here), but ultimately the responsibility lies in the actions of the players.

Have to disagree partially here...we may not have control over what a player does the first time he/she does something stupid. By not calling Intentionals or Flagrants on some of these plays, we do become responsible for what the player is doing. We could have stopped play #5 from ever happening if we had taken care of business on plays 1-4.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Have to disagree partially here...we may not have control over what a player does the first time he/she does something stupid. By not calling Intentionals or Flagrants on some of these plays, we do become responsible for what the player is doing. We could have stopped play #5 from ever happening if we had taken care of business on plays 1-4.

There's a difference between discouraging/penalizing/trying to prevent and actually having control over something.

We don't have control over what players do. There's really no getting around that.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Tio

We do have control who plays in the game.... ejecting #34. It is up to the kids whether they want to play or sit on the bench. I believe in blowing the whistle and that the players will adjust. Or in this case foul out or get ejected.

This I completely agree with. But I'll stand up to any parent or coach out there who tries to tell me I need to get "control" over the players. That's not my job. That's the job of the players themselves.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

There's a difference between discouraging/penalizing/trying to prevent and actually having control over something.

We don't have control over what players do. There's really no getting around that.

So if the red player in play #5 had been seriously injured on that play (and you were the official in that game) this would be your defense in the lawsuit that would probably take place?

"Sorry your honor, but I don't have any control over what that player did"

Really?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fiasco

There's a difference between discouraging/penalizing/trying to prevent and actually having control over something.

We don't have control over what players do. There's really no getting around that.

We certainly do control what players do if the earlier penalties that should have been levied would have DQ'd the player. They could not have been left in the game to commit the rest of the fouls....the officials had the control to make that happen and didn't choose to exercise it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by fiasco

There's a difference between discouraging/penalizing/trying to prevent and actually having control over something.

We don't have control over what players do. There's really no getting around that.

You're confusing absolute control over a person's every action with what officials generally call "controlling a game."

If I DQ a kid who commits a flagrant foul, then I'm controlling the game. He won't be back on the floor that night, will he?

And if I call an intentional foul on a kid who uses excessive force, I'm using the tools at my disposal to control the game. Will his next foul be excessive or even flagrant? Perhaps: and then I'll address that, in order to continue to control the game.

I regard this matter as part of good officiating, independent of whether officials who fail to control their games are more likely to be sued.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Gosh I get tired of this same meme being played over and over again.

Yes, there should have been intentionals and probably a flagrant foul called in that game. But who is to say calling 5 flagrant fouls would have stopped any player out on the court from committing "hard fouls"?

The officials have ZERO control over what the players do. ZERO. Officials can penalize properly and practice preventative officiating (which obviously was not done here), but ultimately the responsibility lies in the actions of the players.

We do have control who plays in the game.... ejecting #34. It is up to the kids whether they want to play or sit on the bench. I believe in blowing the whistle and that the players will adjust. Or in this case foul out or get ejected.

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The officials have ZERO control over what the players do. ZERO. Officials can penalize properly and practice preventative officiating (which obviously was not done here), but ultimately the responsibility lies in the actions of the players.

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.