Uncalled Cheap Shots

[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.

[stiffler3492]

BAHAHAHA! Not without without my formula sheets!

[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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

1. Common foul

What? How can it be a common foul when the player was in the act of shooting?

C'mon gordon30307. There's a reason why most officials consider Rule 4 the most important rule in the book.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What? How can it be a common foul when the player was in the act of shooting?

C'mon gordon30307. There's a reason why most officials consider Rule 4 the most important rule in the book.

Okay, Chief, what would you call that foul, then?

"Personal foul?" They're all "personal fouls."

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

OK, Chief, what would you call that foul, then?
"Personal foul?" They're all "personal fouls."

Personal foul? Sure. Why not? But it certainly isn't a common foul:

A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor
intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a
part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.

OK Snaqwells: If you don't like calling it a personal foul, and you know that it isn't a common foul, then what are you going to call it?

And ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUeqIXOh54

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by fullor30

...a varsity crew that passes the eye test...

I have a passion for improving officiating and forcing everyone - players, coaches, fans and parents - to shut their continuously running traps. Of course, I will not explain enough to get any of thee above close to basketball rule literate. Having said all of that, and not even sure if it is relevant, no this crew does not. One out of three passes the eye test and he seems to have his head in the cloud - holding his hand back up before reporting the "hold". If I was a parent, player or coach I wouldn't think the other two could keep up with the game based on how they look so they fail the eye test.

[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.

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We are not all powerful and even if we call something we will be scrutinized. I just do not buy it when people try to convince us that we have some say we do not have. It is just not true that we have that kind of power. The coach decides who actually plays and or he allows his kid to continue some kind of action. We can call all the fouls we like and they can ignore the consequences. There probably was only one call in this game that was shown that could be really seen as flagrant. And if we did not have a produced video claiming that was the case I doubt seriously that many here would be advocating such action in the first place.

I would like to think we have that kind of influence, but I have seen situations that take place and the officials called all the fouls in the world.

Peace

...is I'm competent. I don't believe any officials have powers that go beyond adjuducating a contest, but part of that role is recognizing that we are there to keep order. If a coach decides he wants to have five goons come out to try to turn a basketball game into a brawl, the best I can do, and will do, is call the fouls that will get those goons out of the game. A lot of it may have to do with where I live and officiate, but I can guarantee there's no varsity crew in my organization that would have tolerated this kind of play without ejecting someone. Our officials are not intimidated by players, coaches, crowds, or the import of the game. Our assignors and state overseers stand with us, but if we screw up, we're expected to take it in the chin.

Our society has changed. Ten years ago, this game would have faded to become a local folkstory; today, it's international news. Our profile has been raised, and this crew's lack of action reflects on us all.

So I agree, officials have no special powers, but if we're afraid to use the ones we have, we get games like this, and the critcism and scrutiny that follows.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ga314ref

Our society has changed. Ten years ago, this game would have faded to become a local folkstory; today, it's international news. Our profile has been raised, and this crew's lack of action reflects on us all.

So I agree, officials have no special powers, but if we're afraid to use the ones we have, we get games like this, and the critcism and scrutiny that follows.

My comments have nothing to do with fear or not having courage. Just stating that we can call what we like and the players and coaches have to realize the consequences, be afraid of the consequences and take appropriate action or adjust. If they do not do that, all the fouls we call is not going to change anything. Obviously the coach was not thinking of the consequences because he obviously let this player stay. I know players that will commit one stupid foul and they do not play again that night.

Once again, a lot of this is based on your experience and standards as well. If that was not the case we would all agree on every foul called and what the call should have been. Still I see a lot of disagreement.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by rwest

#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?

If #34 went to the floor the same way, um, yeah.

This isn't physics class —*mass has nothing to do with it. Bigger players don't get to give hard fouls just because they are bigger.

And the 5th foul in the video had nothing to do with two players being mis-matched —*and everything to do with #34 being a punk and looking to go out there and be a bruiser. Look at his demeanor, how he walks about the court, his reaction after the foul. Did he help the other player up? Do you see any reaction at all from him? Nope ... just carries on being a bully.

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

If we saw them all independently then of course you look at it differently. But the video shows a number of plays. If they happened in sequence then again, I have a really hard time believing anthing else is on tape from that game that would change my mind. And even if they are out of sequence I really don't think that would happen either.

That is part of the problem, we do not know if they are in sequence. All we know is the guy picked out some plays and considered every one flagrant. We do not see other fouls or potential fouls. There might have been other things that we did not see that could have been called. As a matter of fact we do not see much of what this player did on the offensive end either. That is why I would like to see the entire game and then make some judgments as to how skilled the player was or how much basketball they were playing.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

I've personally never called, and have rarely seen, a flagrant either but I'm pretty sure I'm going flagrant on #5 unless maybe it's the first in that sequence.

I have called one in my career and there was no doubt it was flagrant (player purposely threw and elbow to strike a screener). I have seen bigger players knock smaller players to the floor often. All I am saying is it might not have been something I would have though much of just looking at that individual play. Knowing the game and the circumstances surrounding the game, I might have had a different opinion. And I am not talking about these plays, I am talking about other fouls by both teams and other action that might have contributed to some angst.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

But I guess I'm more trusting the video evidence here more than others. Of course there's a chance I'm wrong but I think I've got a pretty good picture of what happened in that game. And I think most of us know, and are in agreement but the general way of how we would handled it if that's the case.

In fact I think you said it well that what stood out was the complete lack of awareness of this crew.

Remember I said the lack of awareness was about how they reacted to the fouls with bodies falling to the floor, not whether or not they called a foul. Anytime I have a player going to the floor on any kind of hard foul, I am in there to make sure the player does not overreact to the contact. Players will do that even when there is not anything flagrant going on. They acted like nothing could happen or needed to be addressed if you looked at the tape. That was my concern more than anything. Even the player that was fouled near the end line could have overreacted to the contact and the officials just seems like he is calling a foul and walking away.

Peace

[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.