Uncalled Cheap Shots

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

A "good argument" on an Internet message board is completely and absolutely different from a good argument in court. That's what I think you and rockyroad (who is probably right now at the local law library combing through a stack of legal cases a mile high bless his heart) fail to understand.

In your opinion, a case could be made to hold the official(s) in the video liable. That's just your opinion. I've still yet to hear a compelling argument as to how the officials in the video demonstrated recklessness or willfull indifference (not by your standards, but by the court standard).

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

A "good argument" on an Internet message board is completely and absolutely different from a good argument in court. That's what I think you and rockyroad (who is probably right now at the local law library combing through a stack of legal cases a mile high bless his heart) fail to understand.

Nope...not looking for anything. It became apparent that you can't see the point here - that these officials did not handle these situations properly, according to the established rules - and that opens the door to claims of negligence.

So be it. You continue on, as will I.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

and that opens the door to claims of negligence.

So be it. You continue on, as will I.

Stepping out of your front door opens the door to claims of negligence.

Walking into the supermarket opens the door to claims of negligence.

Having a pulse opens the door to claims of negligence.

It's just the world we live in. Nothing within this thread changes ANY of that.

Talking about "claims of negligence" and actual negligence are two completely different conversations.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Stepping out of your front door opens the door to claims of negligence.

Walking into the supermarket opens the door to claims of negligence.

Having a pulse opens the door to claims of negligence.

It's just the world we live in. Nothing within this thread changes ANY of that.

Talking about "claims of negligence" and actual negligence are two completely different conversations.

My friend told me a story about her friend skiing in NYS. She was run-over by a less-experienced skier, who was injured on the collision. My friend's friend got up with a tiny bit of pain, only to hear: "Please don't sue me, please don't sue me."

In Canada, those two people would strike up a friendship and grab a Tim's after the skiing was over.

[chseagle]

Here's a few of the comments made to the article posted in today's media source on the video:

I love the fact that people are judging play off of this video. Yes, some of the plays look bad and some are out of frustration. These types of fouls occur in basketball when you have a kid that is the size of #34 against guards like that of Highlands. The guards look like they might weigh about 150 pounds soaking wet. That is pretty close to half the size of #34. Nothing against either of team, but it is pretty easy to look at fouls in slow motion and think they look a lot worse then they actually do. Watch college ball and you will see the same thing. Replay is nice, but it also takes things way out of proportion. As for the person who uploaded the video, why would you put it on youtube if you didn't want it to be watched by all? Foul #2 the kid that came down with the rebound should have been called for traveling as well as stepping out of bounds prior to the foul being called. I thought fouls #3 and #5 looked the worst initially, but both times the ball is what he is going after, he may not have got the ball, but you are told to not allow the player to get the shot off if you are going to foul them. I have had it happen on a number of occasions. As for the coaches, I sure would hope my coach had my back in a situation similar to this. It doesn't matter if he knows things were out of hand a little bit or if he did foul out of the game, when there is a video out there singling out two of his players, he should stick up for them!! This is a team that just finished up football at a small 1A school, participants are limited especially when you have a couple would be starters who are out for a big portion of the year due to injuries sustained at the dome.

After watching that video, I'm curious about the rest of the game. It's pretty clear that there's a lot of frustration, and some of these are frustration fouls. I'm betting that it was a poorly controlled game, with a lot of pushing and shoving throughout.Second thing, particularly with the first two fouls, it looks to me like the Highland players are milking it - acting to increase the odds of a foul call. I hate that too, I think that's just as dirty.Third, #34 is big. Easily twice the size of most of the kids he fouled. Anytime there's contact with him, it's going to look bad. The smaller kid is going to bounce off and/or fall down, and he's not going to move. Add to that he doesn't look like he's much of a basketball player - out of position, lots of reaching, and not at all quick. Honestly, if I was coaching against him I'd tell my guards to go right at him, he's going to overcommit to the play and foul, we're going to get shots, and he's going to be on the bench.Both of the fouls shown by #42 were dumb, and look like frustration fouls. I think something else had probably just happened that also didn't get called, and these were retaliation plays. The first one - on the rebound - he probably felt Highland's player had just pushed him out of the way....and he had. Of course, he'd been moved by #34. The second he probably felt he'd been fouled on the steal.The kicker to both of #42's fouls though - neither should have been called. Calls should have gone against Highland before either foul, ending the play. Highland's player stepped out of bounds before the rebound foul, and another sets a moving screen before the push.I agree the officials for the game need to be looked at, but for completely different reasons.

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

There have been so far a total of 14 comments made on the story.

It still gets me that the person that posted the video is now saying he made a mistake & that he had not planned for the video to get this much publicity.

I tried finding the article from ESPN but cannot find anything.

[Welpe]

Milking it? Are you kidding me? Those kids are getting destroyed out there.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Here's a few of the comments made to the article posted in today's media source on the video:





There have been so far a total of 14 comments made on the story.

It still gets me that the person that posted the video is now saying he made a mistake & that he had not planned for the video to get this much publicity.

I tried finding the article from ESPN but cannot find anything.

These are pure B.S. plain and simple.

[BillyMac]

I think that I've got the "lingo" down now.

Intentional foul on play #4. A two arm push in the back of the opponent. Easy call. No question in my mind. This is not a basketball play.

Intentional foul on play #5 for excessive contact. This "clothesline" play is closest that I get to a flagrant foul. I wouldn't disagree with anyone who called this a flagrant foul, but I'm only going with intentional foul from my seat here in front of my monitor.

All the others are just "ugly" basketball. We see a lot of this in the small, rural districts that we service. Coaches need to put some "big" bodies in the game, don't have a large (numbers) male enrollment to chose from, and find that a few lineman, or linebackers, from the football team can sometimes do a pretty good job of clogging up the middle.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

In a word: bull

just my opinion

[fiasco]

Not to mention the fact that most officials here are in agreement that only one of the fouls in question should have been called flagrant, and that foul wasn't even committed by #34. It was #42.

So, even if you call an intentional on #34 for play #1 and #3 (which almost everyone here is in agreement with), he's still eligible to play in the game.

So how are you going to argue that the officials are liable for play #5, which was committed by #34, and, in our hypothetical, injured the opposing player.

What would calling intentional fouls on #1 and #3 have done more than calling common fouls in those situations?

The answer is: not a whole lot probably, given the way #34 was playing the game.

And that's not even close to grounds to win a civil lawsuit.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Not to mention the fact that most officials here are in agreement that only one of the fouls in question should have been called flagrant, and that foul wasn't even committed by #34. It was #42.

No, most officials here would call each foul as you imply if they were isolated incidents....that is how I analyzed each one for the purposes of discussion.

But, in a game, I think most would have had an intentional on one of the earlier ones and then a flagrant on the following one when considered together....when it was clear that #34 had no intention of playing basketball.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

it was clear that #34 had no intention of playing basketball.

Bingo. And if you are not going to play basketball, please take a seat over there on the bench!!

Three fouls in the first half and the kid is sitting down for the rest of the half. Two more and he is gone from the game.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by fiasco

And that's not even close to grounds to win a civil lawsuit.

It costs a LOT of money to defend yourself in a civil suit, even if the plaintiff loses!