Uncalled Cheap Shots

[BillyMac]

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? Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we've been taught to vocalize, "hard foul", when we give the intentional foul, excessive contact signal.

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.

Didn't you read my post. I included the terms use, and misuse, and ended the sentence with a question mark. The next sentence also ended with a question mark. Just looking for some answers to some questions.

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

Just because there's a hard foul doesn't necessarily mean there's been excessive contact.

Is does in my little corner of Connecticut. Maybe no place else on Earth, but here it means an intentional foul due to excessive contact. Every day. All the time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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?

I am 99% sure they mean a common foul. I've only seen you use the term that way.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I am 99% sure they mean a common foul. I've only seen you use the term that way.

I have worked in three different states in two different parts of the country, coached in these areas as well, and know many coaches from all parts of the country due to my previous involvment with AAU.

99% of the officials and coaches I know think common foul when the use/hear the term hard foul. If they meant intentional, flagrant, or anything else they would use those terms specifically.

An example of a hard foul would be one where there is contact on a shooter. Rather than a "soft" foul that leads to an and one, the coach would rather see his players commit a "clean" hard foul. One in which there is a legitimate play on the ball but the defender does not allow an easy shot attempt/made basket. Its kinda hard to describe in words but again, 99% of the officials and coaches I've dealt with know exactly what it means.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Just out of curiosity, how does Washington classify schools 1-207 students?

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Washington doesn't really use a set number system...they go by percentages of schools. Each classification should have 17% of the schools in the state, so the numbers for a 1A or 2A school change a little every 2 years when they reclassify.

So basically, we have 1B, 2B, 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A schools. 1B runs up to about 90 kids. 2B goes up to around 200, 1A goes up to about 500, 2A goes to about 800, 3A to about 1100, and 4A is anything above that. (numbers are approximations)

Here's the WIAA breakdown:

1B: 0-92 (62 schools)
2B: 93-207 (62 schools)
1A: 208-512 (65 schools)
2A: 513-1085 (64 schools)
3A: 1086-1303 (67 schools)
4A: 1304+ (66 schools)

4.0.0 CLASSIFICATION OF SCHOOLS
4.1.0 DATES FOR CLASSIFICATION OF HIGH SCHOOLS - All high schools are to be classified according to enrollment in grades 10-12. (Schools new to the Association will take the average of their estimated enrollment for their first two years.)
4.1.1 The P-223 enrollment figures as sent to the Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction will be used for classification purposes.
4.1.2 A school’s classification is determined by the average monthly enrollment from January 1 through May 1, October 1 and twice the November 1 count of odd-numbered years and will be the basis for classification for the next two years.
4.1.3 The responsibility for investigating enrollment figures lies with the WIAA Executive Board and this may be invoked by any member school with the support of four (4) other member schools.
4.2.0 HIGH SCHOOL CLASSIFICATIONS - High schools shall be classified as “4A”, “3A”, “2A”, “1A”, “2B” and "1B". Every four (4) years the enrollment parameters for each classification shall be adjusted to promote more equitable distribution in the number of schools. "4A", "3A", "2A", "1A", 17% of the total schools based on 10-12 enrollment from the top down (largest to smallest). The parameters for distribution for the "2B" and "1B" classification shall be 16% of the remaining schools per classification.
4.2.1 In four-year high schools (grades 9-10-11-12), any students who are repeating the 9th grade shall be counted in the school's 10-12 WIAA enrollment figures for that year even though, academically, the school may not consider them sophomores.
4.2.2 School districts with a single high school and a separate, approved alternative school(s), as reported on district P-223 enrollment forms, must assign their students for WIAA Classification Head-count purposes to the high school in which the students would normally be enrolled provided that the alternative school(s) is not a separate member of the WIAA with a
demonstrated two year history of participation in the same number of WIAA sanctioned activities as other WIAA member schools of the same enrollment.
4.2.3 Students must be counted in their school of residence unless they are enrolled in a separately established member school. Member schools in this situation must attempt to gain league affiliation and demonstrate a two (2) year history of participation in the number of WIAA sanctioned activities comparable to other WIAA member schools of the same enrollment.

The WIAA is getting ready to do re-classifications for 2012-2014.

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Minimum security, mostly for first time offenders

Thanks for the idea as there is a Minimum/Medium Correctional Facility in Connell.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I am 99% sure they mean a common foul. I've only seen you use the term that way.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I have worked in three different states in two different parts of the country, coached in these areas as well, and know many coaches from all parts of the country due to my previous involvement with AAU. 99% of the officials and coaches I know think common foul when the use/hear the term hard foul. If they meant intentional, flagrant, or anything else they would use those terms specifically. Its kinda hard to describe in words but again, 99% of the officials and coaches I've dealt with know exactly what it means.

Thanks guys. Maybe officials here in "Rome" associate "hard foul" with intentional foul because we may be one of the few high school associations that use the unapproved (NFHS, IAABO) intentional foul, excessive contact signal. I guess that we're just a bunch of rebels. That'll teach not to use unapproved signals.

[BillyMac]

"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

Originally Posted by VaTerp

99% of the officials and coaches I know think common foul when the use/hear the term hard foul. An example of a hard foul would be one where there is contact on a shooter.

Let's see? Hard foul "means" common foul, and yet, contact with a shooter is a hard foul? How can contact with a shooter "mean" common foul? Not according to Rule 4. Man, talk about the "use, misuse, or abuse, of the terms". We're not even speaking the same language here. I may be the worst offender in this thread, but, by all means, certainly not the only offender.

[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.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."



Let's see? Hard foul "means" common foul, and yet, contact with a shooter is a hard foul? How can contact with a shooter "mean" common foul? Not according to Rule 4. Man, talk about the "use, misuse, or abuse, of the terms". We're not even speaking the same language here. I may be the worst offender in this thread, but, by all means, certainly not the only offender.

True.

I should have said common or personal.

[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...

[Tio]

This is exactly why we pregame to get rid of players who come in to screw up our game. Would you let a HS kid screw up your game?

#34 should have been ejected. He is not in the game to play basketball.

[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.

[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.

[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.