Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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

I don't think I'm confusing anything. I know what I have control over. In fact, one of my favorite sayings when I get some line from a coach or parent is "I can't control your players. I can only control the game."

[tomegun]

It seems like we are getting away from the fact that these officials didn't do a good job of calling these plays. None of them even had the awareness to discuss upgrading any of these fouls to intentional or flagrant. IMO and experience, there are boards/units/associations out there who have clueless "veterans" working games like this every night. Sad.

I also agree about the possibility to get sued. That is the society we are in.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I also agree about the possibility to get sued. That is the society we are in.

True. But there's a distinct difference between getting sued (which can happen to you any time you get out of bed) and being in a position where you can actually be sued successfully.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fiasco

True. But there's a distinct difference between getting sued (which can happen to you any time you get out of bed) and being in a position where you can actually be sued successfully.

And simply being sued can be a very costly and devastating encounter even if it is unsuccessful.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And simply being sued can be a very costly and devastating encounter even if it is unsuccessful.

True, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And simply being sued can be a very costly and devastating encounter even if it is unsuccessful.

Not to mention the very real possibility that such negligence could lead to the first guilty verdict. Whether it's happened before isn't meaningless, but it's not the debate-ending response that fiasco seems to think it is.

[JRutledge]

Players get injuries all the time in games regardless of whether we call a foul or not. A player can be injured irregardless of whether we call a foul or not. I think we overplay the importance of litigation in these discussions.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Players get injuries all the time in games regardless of whether we call a foul or not. A player can be injured irregardless of whether we call a foul or not. I think we overplay the importance of litigation in these discussions.

Peace

Not when the injury happens on play #7 at the hands of #34 with plays #1 - #6 preceding them as in this example. At some point, the officials, having not properly addressed the prior plays, will have exposed themselves to more trouble than just losing games.

It may not be enough for criminal conviction, but civil cases have a much lower threshold.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Players get injuries all the time in games regardless of whether we call a foul or not. A player can be injured irregardless of whether we call a foul or not. I think we overplay the importance of litigation in these discussions.

I think that the point people are making is about fouls that come *after* a player should have been thrown out of the game —*not just a single play.

If there was a flagrant foul (or several) in a game by a single player and the referees allowed the player to stay in the game, a case could be made for negligence by the officials.

A couple of intentional fouls might have changed the tone of the game a bit (force the coach to talk to his punk-a$$ player and tell him to back off) ... and play #5 was flagrant by any definition. It's a travesty that 34 was allowed to stay in the game after that one.