The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 12:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Velley Forge, PA
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOracle View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:33pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:37pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tio View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:46pm
Tio Tio is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
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.
True... unfortunately, in this case the fans were right.

The crew was not prepared to manage the rough play. After all, we are the only thing keeping the game fair and enforcing the rules... otherwise it is just a pickup game.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tio View Post
True... unfortunately, in this case the fans were right.
Which is why seeing stuff like this frustrates me as it makes your job and my job harder in the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:48pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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?
This is pretty laughable. I'd like to see a case of an official being successfully sued because he/she called a common foul as opposed to an intentional/flagrant foul on a player who got injured.

Show me one, then I'll respond to your outlandish hypothetical.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 02:06pm
Tio Tio is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 463
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
This is pretty laughable. I'd like to see a case of an official being successfully sued because he/she called a common foul as opposed to an intentional/flagrant foul on a player who got injured.

Show me one, then I'll respond to your outlandish hypothetical.
Does it matter the validity if you have to pay legal fees to defend yourself? This is why I have a NASO policy... there are plenty of nutty parents out there who would do something like this. Make sure you are covered. For $100 a year you get legal coverage from NASO. A bargain if you ever were to need it.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 02:14pm
Esteemed Participant
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 4,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
This is pretty laughable. I'd like to see a case of an official being successfully sued because he/she called a common foul as opposed to an intentional/flagrant foul on a player who got injured.

Show me one, then I'll respond to your outlandish hypothetical.
Ok...check out Pantalowe v. Lenape Valley Regional High School...New Jersey Superior Court. Found this one in less than 30 seconds of internet searching. Not laughable and not outlandish.

Wrestling official was named as co-defendant in a case where the wrestler was paralyzed, claiming the injury occurred because the official allowed an illegal hold to be applied and did not stop the action. Official and his insurance ended up settling before it went to trial.

In today's litigation-happy environment, you honestly believe that there are no lawyers out there who would take a case based on this video (assuming someone had been injured)?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 03:42pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
This is pretty laughable. I'd like to see a case of an official being successfully sued because he/she called a common foul as opposed to an intentional/flagrant foul on a player who got injured.

Show me one, then I'll respond to your outlandish hypothetical.
That's not what he is talking about. A good argument can be made that #34 should have been tossed after play #3 in this video. Any injuries he causes after that play would therefore be at least liable for a lawsuit.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 01:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Earth- For Now
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockyroad View Post
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?
I agree with Fiasco to a point. Ultimately, we DO NOT control the individual actions of players and they are responsible for what they do on the court. This is why, as I stated earlier, that one of my biggest pet peeves is when people say, "you're gonna get somebody hurt out there."

In a court of law, a plaintiff would have to prove some form of negligence on the part of the game officials. In this video, I feel very strongly that the offficials were negligent (not necessarily in a legal sense but in an officiating sense) in dealing with #34's actions. There is a clear pattern of behavior that they allowed to continue and escalate.

But say foul #5 occurred first or a kid is injured on the first hard foul of the game. This is not the fault of the officials. There is an inherent risk involved in playing sports. Save for the Orlando Brown-Jeff Triplete incident in the NFL, I have never seen a player hurt as the direct result of an officials actions.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 04, 2012, 02:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp View Post
I agree with Fiasco to a point. Ultimately, we DO NOT control the individual actions of players and they are responsible for what they do on the court. This is why, as I stated earlier, that one of my biggest pet peeves is when people say, "you're gonna get somebody hurt out there."
To a point, this particular discussion in this part of the thread is being boiled down to semantics, particularly Camron's last post.

I think we can all agree that statements like the one at the end of your post quoted above are pure horse poo and we all grow weary at some time or another of having to hear it.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 06, 2012, 12:05am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 115
If their lawyer...

Quote:
Originally Posted by VaTerp View Post
I agree with Fiasco to a point. Ultimately, we DO NOT control the individual actions of players and they are responsible for what they do on the court. This is why, as I stated earlier, that one of my biggest pet peeves is when people say, "you're gonna get somebody hurt out there."

In a court of law, a plaintiff would have to prove some form of negligence on the part of the game officials. In this video, I feel very strongly that the offficials were negligent (not necessarily in a legal sense but in an officiating sense) in dealing with #34's actions. There is a clear pattern of behavior that they allowed to continue and escalate.

But say foul #5 occurred first or a kid is injured on the first hard foul of the game. This is not the fault of the officials. There is an inherent risk involved in playing sports. Save for the Orlando Brown-Jeff Triplete incident in the NFL, I have never seen a player hurt as the direct result of an officials actions.
...can get an "official referee" to testify as a witness, who knows what might happen.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NB450 Shoes Cheap JaxRolo Baseball 0 Sat Sep 04, 2010 07:17pm
One shot, two shots or three shots. wbrown Basketball 14 Mon Jan 26, 2009 09:42am
Help! I'm Cheap And I Can't Get Up ... BillyMac Basketball 6 Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:26pm
Nfl cheap shot MNF fljet Football 23 Sun Sep 28, 2008 03:42pm
cheap shot longtimwatcher Football 3 Tue Dec 05, 2006 07:34pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1