Uncalled Cheap Shots

[rwest]

Originally Posted by BLydic

I'm sorry, but if they are in chronological order and after I saw #1, #3 becomes flagrant and #34 is gone.

Oblivious? After #5, the one everyone agrees is the only flagrant foul, the C comes in for a chat with #34. Looked like a pleasant conversation with possibly a little pat on the fanny.

#34 moved to the side (If I remember the play) and hits the arm and probably some contact on the body. It was not savage or violent. I think one thing is missing in this discussion. #34 is a big boy and when he makes contact it is going have more mass behind it. Would you call a flagrant foul if this same foul was committed by a point guard on #34?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

#34 moved to the side (If I remember the play) and hits the arm and probably some contact on the body. It was not savage or violent. I think one thing is missing in this discussion. #34 is a big boy and when he makes contact it is going have more mass behind it. Would you call a flagrant foul if this same foul was committed by a point guard on #34?

Why does that matter? Sure, when B1 is significantly bigger than A1, his contact is going to have more affect; but he's still responsible for it.

That said, #1 is, at most, borderline intentional. If that's his first foul, I've probably got a common foul. #3 is easily an intentional. #5, he's done.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why does that matter? Sure, when B1 is significantly bigger than A1, his contact is going to have more affect; but he's still responsible for it.

+1

The rule concerning fouls refers to advantage/disadvantage and the use of excessive or flagrant force. A bigger player putting a smaller player at a disadvantage via contact is still a foul.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by mbyron

+1

The rule concerning fouls refers to advantage/disadvantage and the use of excessive or flagrant force. A bigger player putting a smaller player at a disadvantage via contact is still a foul.

Guys, read what I said. I never said it wasn't a foul. Just not flagrant. So are you going to call a flagrant foul on this? Would you call a flagrant foul on the point guard for making a similar move on #34?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by rwest

Guys, read what I said. I never said it wasn't a foul. Just not flagrant. So are you going to call a flagrant foul on this? Would you call a flagrant foul on the point guard for making a similar move on #34?

The judgment of flagrant/not flagrant is entirely based on the outcome of the play. It is "easier" for a big than for a little guard to commit a flagrant foul. :shrug:

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

Guys, read what I said. I never said it wasn't a foul. Just not flagrant. So are you going to call a flagrant foul on this? Would you call a flagrant foul on the point guard for making a similar move on #34?

Which foul are you talking about? #1 or #5?

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by mbyron

+1

The rule concerning fouls refers to advantage/disadvantage and the use of excessive or flagrant force. A bigger player putting a smaller player at a disadvantage via contact is still a foul.

No where in the rule book is advantage/disadvantage mentioned. It's an interpratation that we use use when reffing a game. The size of the player is immaterial when one is using judgement concerning an act that is excessive and uncalled for. #5 in my judgement is flagrant and he's gone. Therefore #6 never would have happened. At least if I'm the calling official.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

No where in the rule book is advantage/disadvantage mentioned. It's an interpratation that we use use when reffing a game. The size of the player is immaterial when one is using judgement concerning an act that is excessive and uncalled for. #5 in my judgement is flagrant and he's gone. Therefore #6 never would have happened. At least if I'm the calling official.

Yes, advantage is in the rule book. Page 8, just before Rule 1. Also, with regard to fouls, you're correct in that it's not technically part of the wording. Do you interpret "which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements" in a way that makes the distinction more than semantics?

The size of the player cannot be immaterial, because the result of the contact is dependent in part upon the size discrepancy between the involved players. It may not be solely definitive, but it's not immaterial either.

[Da Official]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, advantage is in the rule book. Page 8, just before Rule 1. Also, with regard to fouls, you're correct in that it's not technically part of the wording. Do you interpret "which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements" in a way that makes the distinction more than semantics?

The size of the player cannot be immaterial, because the result of the contact is dependent in part upon the size discrepancy between the involved players. It may not be solely definitive, but it's not immaterial either.

+1 "Size does matter"

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, advantage is in the rule book. Page 8, just before Rule 1. Also, with regard to fouls, you're correct in that it's not technically part of the wording. Do you interpret "which hinders an opponent from performing normal defensive and offensive movements" in a way that makes the distinction more than semantics?

The size of the player cannot be immaterial, because the result of the contact is dependent in part upon the size discrepancy between the involved players. It may not be solely definitive, but it's not immaterial either.

Yeah but is disadvantage in the rule book? I don't know if it is or not I'm just yanking your chain. I'll concede your point which hinders etal.

Obviously in the course of "normal play" the big guy can send the little guy flying. That goes without saying. Big or small if there"s "intent" to injure it's flagrant. I've called lots of intentional and I had one opportunity to call a flagrant but my partner beat me to it. I like to think my game management skill are such that I could have nipped a lot of that stuff in the bud. You never know because **** happens. Have a good day.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Yeah but is disadvantage in the rule book? I don't know if it is or not I'm just yanking your chain. I'll concede your point which hinders etal.

Obviously in the course of "normal play" the big guy can send the little guy flying. That goes without saying. Big or small if there"s "intent" to injure it's flagrant. I've called lots of intentional and I had one opportunity to call a flagrant but my partner beat me to it. I like to think my game management skill are such that I could have nipped a lot of that stuff in the bud. You never know because **** happens. Have a good day.

I think hitting #34 with an intentional on play #3 would have probably stopped it. If the officials had gone intentional on both #1 and #2 (not out of the question), the coach would likely have sat him down. These guys definitely missed some opportunities to solve the problem.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why does that matter? Sure, when B1 is significantly bigger than A1, his contact is going to have more affect; but he's still responsible for it.

That said, #1 is, at most, borderline intentional. If that's his first foul, I've probably got a common foul. #3 is easily an intentional. #5, he's done.

I never said he wasn't responsible for it. You are reading into my comments more than I intended. But size does play a factor. Answer me this, if the little point guard did the same thing to #34, are you going to call an intentional or flagrant foul on the guard?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rwest

I never said he wasn't responsible for it. You are reading into my comments more than I intended. But size does play a factor. Answer me this, if the little point guard did the same thing to #34, are you going to call an intentional or flagrant foul on the guard?

Let me rephrase, the effect of the contact has some bearing on it. If a 90 lb pg tried those things on #34, there wouldn't have been as much effect (except for the flagrant #5 when the shooter was airborne).

If a 90 lb point guard was throwing his body around with such reckless disregard for his opponents, it might take me longer to notice; but yes, I'd be inclined to toss him.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by rwest

#34 moved to the side (If I remember the play) and hits the arm and probably some contact on the body. It was not savage or violent. I think one thing is missing in this discussion. #34 is a big boy and when he makes contact it is going have more mass behind it. Would you call a flagrant foul if this same foul was committed by a point guard on #34?

I'm sorry but what?

I think what most of us are saying is that when it's clear that somebody is more concerned with using their body as a weapon on a basketball cout than they are on actually playing basketball then we would do our best to control the game as an official and use the rules at our disposal to remove the player from the contest. Regardless of their size or position.

And when it's clear, as in this video, that this kid's fouls are putting opponents in way of physical risks beyond that of what typically occurs in an organized basketball game a compotent official does their best to get rid of them. Again regardless of their size or position.

The fact that he is a "big boy" and chooses to illegally and dangerously throw his weight around is on him.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I'm sorry but what?

I think what most of us are saying is that when it's clear that somebody is more concerned with using their body as a weapon on a basketball cout than they are on actually playing basketball then we would do our best to control the game as an official and use the rules at our disposal to remove the player from the contest. Regardless of their size or position.

And when it's clear, as in this video, that this kid's fouls are putting opponents in way of physical risks beyond that of what typically occurs in an organized basketball game a compotent official does their best to get rid of them. Again regardless of their size or position.

The fact that he is a "big boy" and chooses to illegally and dangerously throw his weight around is on him.

I didn't see play number 1 the same way you did. It looked to me like he moved to try and block the shot. #5 was definitely flagrant. # 1 didn't seem to me that he was "dangerously throwing" his weight around like number 5. or foul number 3.