Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I can see calling common fouls on #1 and #2. #3 I would have had an intentional. I'm sure you agree that if you take care of business early it normally (not always) causes things to settle down. If only because the "perps" are in foul trouble.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

I can see calling common fouls on #1 and #2. #3 I would have had an intentional. I'm sure you agree that if you take care of business early it normally (not always) causes things to settle down. If only because the "perps" are in foul trouble.

Yes, I agree.

Sorry, I meant #1 and #3 (#2 is a different player, and a common foul). I would have considered upgrading #1 to an intentional, I'm just not sure either way on it assuming it's the first foul.

All the others are clear cut one way or the other, IMO, and there's really no excuse for not upgrading 3-5. #6 shouldn't have happened.

[BktBallRef]

Okay, here's my take.

#1, INT foul. I don't have any problem calling this, based on excessive contact. However, since it's the first such foul of the game, I could go personal foul but he would be on my radar.

#2, common foul. No big deal here. In fact, you could make a case for Red #20 fouling first.

#3, this is the one foul I have as flagrant. That's an intentional elbow to the shooter's head. In the NCAA, they're reviewing that and he's gone.

#4, an obvious INT foul.

#5, I have an INT foul here, not a flagrant. Yes, he hits the floor hard but the contact is not flagrant. #5 looks bad but the contact in #3 is more savage.

#6, common foul.