Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Okay, here's my take.

#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.

#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.

.

Bktballref, I guess I'm not following your reasoning here. I agree that #3 is flagrant, but it seems like #5 should be also. He makes no play on the ball, simply reaches out and grabs the red player by the side of the head and slams him down. How do you see that contact as not flagrant? A "clothesline" play like that seems pretty flagrant to me.

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Bktballref, I guess I'm not following your reasoning here. I agree that #3 is flagrant, but it seems like #5 should be also. He makes no play on the ball, simply reaches out and grabs the red player by the side of the head and slams him down. How do you see that contact as not flagrant? A "clothesline" play like that seems pretty flagrant to me.

Here's a good question: you are on the crew, and you see that, and that your partner has a regular foul. Do you intervene and throw him out? You see a vicious and intentional shot to the head, and you partner has a common foul. How far do you take it?

I'd expect any of the crew to be able to throw someone out if they witness something like this.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by TheOracle

Here's a good question: you are on the crew, and you see that, and that your partner has a regular foul. Do you intervene and throw him out? You see a vicious and intentional shot to the head, and you partner has a common foul. How far do you take it?

I'd expect any of the crew to be able to throw someone out if they witness something like this.

Hmmmm...I guess you could. I don't think I would just step in there and give the toss "signal". I would get in there and stop my partner and have a conversation with him/her and do my best to convince him/her that we needed to toss the kid.

Now if I had a whistle on the play also, then yes - I would be comfortable giving the toss "signal" right away.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

hmmmm...i guess you could. I don't think i would just step in there and give the toss "signal". I would get in there and stop my partner and have a conversation with him/her and do my best to convince him/her that we needed to toss the kid.

Now if i had a whistle on the play also, then yes - i would be comfortable giving the toss "signal" right away.

+1

[stiffler3492]

BAHAHAHA! Not without without my formula sheets!

[Brad]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Bktballref, I guess I'm not following your reasoning here. I agree that #3 is flagrant, but it seems like #5 should be also. He makes no play on the ball, simply reaches out and grabs the red player by the side of the head and slams him down. How do you see that contact as not flagrant? A "clothesline" play like that seems pretty flagrant to me.

Agree ... it's totally a non-basketball play.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Bktballref, I guess I'm not following your reasoning here. I agree that #3 is flagrant, but it seems like #5 should be also. He makes no play on the ball, simply reaches out and grabs the red player by the side of the head and slams him down. How do you see that contact as not flagrant? A "clothesline" play like that seems pretty flagrant to me.

I didn't see him grab the side of his head. I saw him come across under his arm.

It's kind of like watching a high hit in football and trying to determine instantaneously whether it was helmet to helmet or not.

I'll watch it again tomorrow.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand what you are saying, but by that time the officials should realize that kid is not a basketball player. He left his feet once in the video on the last foul. Even then he never jumped to the height of the ball in the other player's hands. He just realized he couldn't get that high and fouled the kid - again around the head.

How many of us that have played the game make it a habit of attempting to block shots without leaving the floor? Staying on the floor is great for getting more torque while swinging the arms, but there is almost no chance of blocking the shot.