Flagrant/Intentional

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why not?

Ugh...because I'm an idiot?

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I cannot tell if this is a "get off me" shove or a full out punch to the chest of face.

Peace

For me, a "get off me" shove to the head is going to still be flagrant. I'm more tolerant of a "get off me" shove to the torso, but we shouldn't tolerate contact to the head.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

For me, a "get off me" shove to the head is going to still be flagrant. I'm more tolerant of a "get off me" shove to the torso, but we shouldn't tolerate contact to the head.

It looked like the head to me, but I'm not sure from the angle of the camera. You're right, though, if the "get off me shove" goes to the head, I'm going flagrant.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

For me, a "get off me" shove to the head is going to still be flagrant. I'm more tolerant of a "get off me" shove to the torso, but we shouldn't tolerate contact to the head.

I am not calling that automatically flagrant as I would need to see why they are reacting that way. I cannot tell how much of their arm the defender has. Players do that often in games and especially when the game is getting a little chippy. That is why I said I would need a better angle to make that determination.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not calling that automatically flagrant as I would need to see why they are reacting that way. I cannot tell how much of their arm the defender has. Players do that often in games and especially when the game is getting a little chippy. That is why I said I would need a better angle to make that determination.

Peace

I understand your position; I just don't agree with it. For me, no provocation is sufficient that a blow to the head will not be flagrant.

My question for you is what could B being doing here that you won't toss A for a blow to the head?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I understand your position; I just don't agree with it. For me, no provocation is sufficient that a blow to the head will not be flagrant.

My question for you is what could B being doing here that you won't toss A for a blow to the head?

I was not asking you to agree with it. I have been doing this long enough where you see players push away arms or hands all the time. If I called a flagrant foul every time that happen I would have one every week.

Also I do not know if it was a blow to the head. And it would not matter if it was a blow to the head or to the chest, if it is a punch it is a punch. That is different than trying to get someone's hand or arm off of you and trying to push that away.

Peace

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I understand your position; I just don't agree with it. For me, no provocation is sufficient that a blow to the head will not be flagrant.

My question for you is what could B being doing here that you won't toss A for a blow to the head?

There is no justification. But you're debating a play with someone who said there was contact made by Blue, eventhough there is no evidence to support that claim.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

There is no justification. But you're debating a play with someone who said there was contact made by Blue, eventhough there is no evidence to support that claim.

Did you say no evidence? You are saying you can see no contact made by Blue at all with confidence?

Dude, I get that you might disagree, but many people questioned whether we had a foul or anything called before the offensive player reacted. It would matter as to the nature of the fouls being called. If you and others want to go flagrant foul, I am OK with that. I just want more of an angle to decide. Sorry, my experience tells me you do not make decisions without a larger view of the story. And there must have been something to discuss as the calling official and another official come together and apparently do not eject anyone from the game. There must have been a debate about something.

Peace

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Did you say no evidence? You are saying you can see no contact made by Blue at all with confidence?

Dude, I get that you might disagree, but many people questioned whether we had a foul or anything called before the offensive player reacted. It would matter as to the nature of the fouls being called. If you and others want to go flagrant foul, I am OK with that. I just want more of an angle to decide. Sorry, my experience tells me you do not make decisions without a larger view of the story. And there must have been something to discuss as the calling official and another official come together and apparently do not eject anyone from the game. There must have been a debate about something.

Peace

Yep, no evidence. If you don't have a good enough angle to determine if it was a shove verses a punch, then you don't have a good enough angle to claim that there was contact made by Blue. At 6 seconds into the clip is when B24 swipes down at the ball. If you pause it there, you cannot see the ball, W24's hands, or B24's left hand that is swiping down. Maybe she got all ball??? We can't tell, L can't see it, C doesn't have the best angle either.

However, the shot to the head is clear. We all see plenty of 'tie ups' and arms flying around, hands slapping together, etc., but you don't see this type of play often. It's pretty clear that this was targetted contact to the head. So to say 'I would have a flagrant foul every week', inferring that you see this type of play every week is disingenuous.

The crew did get together and kept the player in the game. We don't know the experience level of crew however. We do know that C gave a technical (made the T sign) to W24, which is an incorrect mechanic for that play. A sign of inexperience? Maybe, maybe not.

Do what you need to do Jeff. You've been around a long time and are well respected in your state. I just want to make sure that the younger officials on this board realize that the penalty for contact to the head, as made in this OP, should not be dependent on what may have happened seconds prior to it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Yep, no evidence. If you don't have a good enough angle to determine if it was a shove verses a punch, then you don't have a good enough angle to claim that there was contact made by Blue. At 6 seconds into the clip is when B24 swipes down at the ball. If you pause it there, you cannot see the ball, W24's hands, or B24's left hand that is swiping down. Maybe she got all ball??? We can't tell, L can't see it, C doesn't have the best angle either.

Actually I said it was unclear and I was not alone in saying that. Again, if you want to call a flagrant foul, good for you. I honestly do not care or would not object to your judgment.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

However, the shot to the head is clear. We all see plenty of 'tie ups' and arms flying around, hands slapping together, etc., but you don't see this type of play often. It's pretty clear that this was targetted contact to the head. So to say 'I would have a flagrant foul every week', inferring that you see this type of play every week is disingenuous.

OK it is clear.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The crew did get together and kept the player in the game. We don't know the experience level of crew however. We do know that C gave a technical (made the T sign) to W24, which is an incorrect mechanic for that play. A sign of inexperience? Maybe, maybe not.

But they obviously did not agree with you right? They obviously did not call a flagrant right? And since it was so clear to you on a tape looking at a strightlined view, they obviously had likely a better angle than you did and came to some conclusion other than what you and a few with the benefit of replay and watching over and over the officials seemed to not have.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Do what you need to do Jeff. You've been around a long time and are well respected in your state. I just want to make sure that the younger officials on this board realize that the penalty for contact to the head, as made in this OP, should not be dependent on what may have happened seconds prior to it.

I will say it this way, you are flat out wrong. You are wrong because if a player was trying to get their arm free and inadvertently hit someone in the face, head or chest is different than throwing a punch out of anger. If it was not the case than the NCAA would not have officials look at the monitor for plays like this in the first place. And unlike the NCAA these guys did not get replay or other angles to help them make the call. And younger officials need to also realize that if they make the wrong ruling in someone's eyes, they might be subjected to not working certain games or be perceived as not having good judgment. We can debate this tape all day like we did the last one on flagrant fouls and even in that one there were opinions all over the place on what was or what was not flagrant. It does matter everything that takes place because it might tell the story as to if this was a punch or just a reaction to being held. I have been around long enough in my local area to hear about an official that overreacted to a situation only to later be taken off games or banned from a conference because they did not use "good judgment." Just because I think what happen first matters to the reaction on some level is not unusual in officiating and why the officials talked in this situation. If it was clear, they would have not needed to talk.

Peace

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

So tell me exactly what are the mechanics for a flagrant foul. There is no signal for "flagrant." What is preliminary? How do you report to the table?

...you cross your forearms over your head and then bring them down in front of you. There's no official mechanic for ejection, but the hitchhiker's thumb is pretty universal.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ga314ref

You cross your forearms over your head and then bring them down in front of you.

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...as to why they took the flagrant mechanic away from NFHS? Thanks.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ga314ref

...as to why they took the flagrant mechanic away from NFHS? Thanks.

I do not know that there ever was one.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by ga314ref

...as to why they took the flagrant mechanic away from NFHS? Thanks.

I don't believe there's every been an official mechanic. In fact the mechanic you speak of is an NCAA mechanic to denote a flagrant 1 due to excessive contact rather than a flagrant foul 2/flagrant foul (NFHS).