Uncalled Cheap Shots

[BLydic]

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?

You're very quick to ask others to read exactly what you posted and I'll ask you to do the same. I didn't say #1 was flagrant. I said after seeing how the player made a feeble attempt to block the shot on #1, but IMO, made every attempt to make contact with the shooter , his attempt to take the shooters head off on #3 becomes flagrant in my book.

The ball didn't even make it higher than the shooters hip on #3, so I'm not going with the "he made an attempt to play the ball and just happened to make contact" bullcrap. FYI, this isn't happening in a vacuum either. I'm having a direct conversation with the player after #1 and if the opportunity presented itself, I'd let the coach know I had a conversation with his player. If neither took the opportunity to change the situation, then #3 is his ticket to watch the rest of the game from one of the best seats in the house.

[BillyMac]

Has anyone posted this yet? Since these are live ball fouls, I've edited out the technical foul references.

A flagrant foul may be a personal foul of a violent or savage nature, It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. Fighting is a flagrant act.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Has anyone posted this yet? Since these are live ball fouls, I've edited out the technical foul references.

A flagrant foul may be a personal foul of a violent or savage nature, It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. Fighting is a flagrant act.

And this is the reason many will not agree on what is flagrant. This rule gives a lot of room for judgment and interpretation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And this is the reason many will not agree on what is flagrant. This rule gives a lot of room for judgment and interpretation.

It's the old, "not limited to", trick.

With the exception of the "clothesline" foul, I'm not thinking flagrant foul on any of these plays. And, on the "clothesline" foul, I'm only thinking flagrant foul, but just as likely to go intentional foul (excessive contact), depending on my mindset at that specific time in the game. Not that I would want to be there, but maybe I had to be there, to make this call.

[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?

You still haven't answered who on this board claimed #1 would be flagrant.

[RookieDude]

I posted the following in a PM to a fellow Washington official, on this forum, that had wished me good luck in the game. We are all "friends" here...so here is my PM to him.


Thanks ______...Connell played Burbank last night...both 1A schools. There was a lot of local media covering the game, but they really had nothing to report on or see that was too interesting.

It was 5 min. into the game before either team fouled. Coaches and players were on their best behavior. I heard #34 didn't go to school friday...therefore, he was ineligible to play and was not even there. #42 got his 5th foul in the middle of the 4th quarter and helped the kid up that he had just fouled. I had closed down on the foul...and said "thank-you" when he offered his hand to the opponent.

I did "T" up the assistant coach from Connell (which is the head football coach at the school) about 2 min. into the 4th quarter. I had just called a foul on #42 (his 4th) for pushing a player as he was crossing the key on offense. The coaches had been great all night...no complaining...nothing. But, as I was reporting the PUSHING foul...the assistant coach yelled, "What did he do?"...I ignored him (since I had just reported what he did) and went to inbound the ball on the endline as new trail. As I was running by the bench...the assistant coach yelled again, "What did he do!" WHACK! unsporting behavior, explained it to the head coach (for about 5 seconds) and away we went.

Yeah...probably a little quick on the trigger...but, the devil made me do it.

Pretty easy night...Burbank beat Connell by about 20.

[deecee]

CNN has picked up this video

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[canuckrefguy]

Well, the three gentlemen working this game are famous now. Yahoo has picked up the story...

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highsc...133731387.html

For the record:

Play #1 – common foul
Play #2 – common
Play #3 – intentional foul
Play #4 – intentional
Play #5 – flagrant – absolutely, especially given the others on 34
Play #6 – common

3,4, and 5 are quite obviously "upgrades", especially (good grief ) 4 and 5

I would add that #34 can be seen with a big dexter-eating grin on his face on the FT lane after hammering that poor guy.

Can't remember - did we establish if these plays were in chronological order?

[JugglingReferee]

• Play #1
  • no information available
• Play #2
  • Q1, 6:55 left.
  • Score is 2-? (H-V).
  • Foul count is 1 apiece.
  • Last foul was by 20 - which must have been 20 on red, which means that 34's foul was the first foul of the game. And 20 red was the player fouled in this play.
  • 5 timeouts each
• Play #3
  • no information available
• Play #4
  • no information available
• Play #5
  • no information available
• Play #6
  • no information available

[JugglingReferee]

At the time of this posting, the video had 5.5 million hits.

The most popular video, Charlie Bit Me, has had 400 million views.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

On first viewing, I had #2 and #6 as common fouls, #5 as flagrant, and the rest intentional.

I would've been looking quite closely at 34 and 42 and they wouldn't have played a lot of minutes -- either after getting ejected or picking up a few quick fouls.

No real urgency with the officials -- on hard fouls like that you'd expect at least 2 of the officials to close distance quickly to make sure things don't escalate. But here, nothing.

I don't think I've posted in this marathon of a thread, but I agree with you. 2 and 6 were common fouls, 5 was flagrant, and the others intentional.

I can't believe how nonchalant the officials are during this. On #5, an intentional isn't even called, and non one closes down after the shooter hits the floor. The Trail just puts his hands on his hips and stands there like he has nothing better to do. I close down on stuff far more tame than this.

As big of a turd as #34 is, and how much of a moron his coach might be, the officials did a horrible job managing this game and situation. Foul #5 wouldn't have happened with competent officials on the floor, because #34 would be on the bench already. Unbelievable.

[dsqrddgd909]

The videos were part of our State Mandated area meetings yesterday.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by dsqrddgd909

The videos were part of our State Mandated area meetings yesterday.

And what did they suggest a proper ruling to be?

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Foul #5 wouldn't have happened with competent officials on the floor, because #34 would be on the bench already. Unbelievable.

I still don't understand this comment.

How would #34 have been on the bench, based solely on the information we have from the video?

Foul #1, you said you have an intentional. That's not automatically sending #34 to the bench.

Foul #2 is not even committed by #34.

Foul #3 you've again said is intentional. Two intentionals doesn't give you an automatic seat on the bench. So #34 is still out there.

Foul #4, again, isn't committed by #34.

So, #34 is still on the floor. Even if you had been calling the game, and had called what you said you would call in this situation, he's still on the floor.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by fiasco

I still don't understand this comment.

How would #34 have been on the bench, based solely on the information we have from the video?

Foul #1, you said you have an intentional. That's not automatically sending #34 to the bench.

Foul #2 is not even committed by #34.

Foul #3 you've again said is intentional. Two intentionals doesn't give you an automatic seat on the bench. So #34 is still out there.

Foul #4, again, isn't committed by #34.

So, #34 is still on the floor. Even if you had been calling the game, and had called what you said you would call in this situation, he's still on the floor.

I didn't say anything about automatically sending him to the bench. If he's a turd like this and the coach isn't going to take him out, find a way to get him out. Usually kids like this will dig their own grave and be done pretty quickly.