Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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!