Uncalled Cheap Shots

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You have authority over the contest, but they have the authority to cancel the contest. Sounds like they win, if this is an authority contest.

Not really. The game will be canceled, but they will *lose* the game.

I know an AD who (over a beer) actually told me once he felt he had the ability to fire the official at halftime if he's not happy with how the official is working. I laughed and said, "Good luck with that."

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I didn't know that, but now that I do...

Whew!!!!!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Not really. The game will be canceled, but they will *lose* the game.

There was a coach that did this from the city at a tournament not close to them and the coach took his team off the court because of what he did not like about the officiating. Well the bosses suspended that coach for multiple games and the IHSA I believe took some action as well. So they can do anything they want, but it might come with some unintended consequences they did not anticipate.

Peace

[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.

[Da Official]

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

This is sickening to watch.....

Of the 6 clips I probably go Flagrant on #3 and #5. Intentional on 1 or 2. (Normal) Foul on the others.

Sad that a 3 man crew allowed this to happen....

[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.

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Not really. The game will be canceled, but they will *lose* the game.

If the home AD chooses to cancel the game because of the actions of the home players, he chooses to *lose* the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

if the home ad chooses to cancel the game because of the actions of the home players for any reason, he chooses to *lose* the game.

f.i.f.y.

[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 AllPurposeGamer

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.

Except in one particular corner....

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

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.

I was just trying to figure out what posters meant by a "hard foul".

Say "hard foul" to any one of the three hundred officials, or 140 varsity coaches, in this part of Connecticut, and they will automatically assume it's two shots, and the ball. It's a when in Rome thing.

I had trouble figuring out poster's interpretations because every time I read "hard foul" I thought intentional foul. Maybe some of them meant an intentional foul. Maybe others didn't. I'm still not sure. Is this just a Connecticut thing, or does "hard foul" mean intentional foul in any other part of the country?