Flagrant/Intentional

[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

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.
Peace

Actually, in post #3 you said "I guess it depends if you consider the ball handler to throw a punch. But there was some contact before that, so based on the angle I cannot say that was the case with confidence." Sounds like you thought it was clear at that point. So with the same angle you have contact by B24, but can't tell if W24 pushed or punched.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.
Peace

Which official had a better angle?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

My advice to players is if you are trying to get your arm free, you better be pulling your arm towards your own body and not pushing it towards anyone else. Otherwise you're asking for trouble. The whole "get off me" thing has gone over the top and is only causing problems, imho.

I think we all need to be reminded that we all can be videotaped at any time and it can be on the internet. Non-basketball plays need to be caught and dealt with properly and correctly. I think the majority of us take in to consideration on what happened first, in regards to a reaction, as long as the reaction is a basketball play. If the reaction is non-basketball in nature, then I don't care what happened first.

Maybe it wasn't clear to the crew because none of them saw it.

I'm done. Good luck in the state tournament Jeff.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Actually, in post #3 you said "I guess it depends if you consider the ball handler to throw a punch. But there was some contact before that, so based on the angle I cannot say that was the case with confidence." Sounds like you thought it was clear at that point. So with the same angle you have contact by B24, but can't tell if W24 pushed or punched.

OoooKaaaaayyy?? What is your point?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Which official had a better angle?

Without going back and looking it looked like the official on the other side of the court would have had a better angle of the push off or punch.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

My advice to players is if you are trying to get your arm free, you better be pulling your arm towards your own body and not pushing it towards anyone else. Otherwise you're asking for trouble. The whole "get off me" thing has gone over the top and is only causing problems, imho.

OK?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

I think we all need to be reminded that we all can be videotaped at any time and it can be on the internet. Non-basketball plays need to be caught and dealt with properly and correctly. I think the majority of us take in to consideration on what happened first, in regards to a reaction, as long as the reaction is a basketball play. If the reaction is non-basketball in nature, then I don't care what happened first.

Ok?

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Maybe it wasn't clear to the crew because none of them saw it.

I'm done. Good luck in the state tournament Jeff.

Well glad you got that off your chest.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.



OK it is clear.



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.



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

A similar thing should happen if an official under reacts and leaves a kid in the game who should've been ejected on a flagrant, right?

I will agree with what you said with respect to a held arm and the reaction. We had a player throw an elbow the other night that did not land and the other coach was all over us. Of course, the opposing player had grabbed hold of the arm in an effort to get to the ball and the reaction was to try to free himself from the hold. Just what I told the coach, too. Maybe he didn't like that, but then again, approximately half the people in those types of situations don't like what we say either.

Off to do a game. Assignment 2 of 6 this week. I like being busy.

[constable]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

A similar thing should happen if an official under reacts and leaves a kid in the game who should've been ejected on a flagrant, right?

I will agree with what you said with respect to a held arm and the reaction. We had a player throw an elbow the other night that did not land and the other coach was all over us. Of course, the opposing player had grabbed hold of the arm in an effort to get to the ball and the reaction was to try to free himself from the hold. Just what I told the coach, too. Maybe he didn't like that, but then again, approximately half the people in those types of situations don't like what we say either.

Off to do a game. Assignment 2 of 6 this week. I like being busy.

6 assignments in a week is busy? Out of curiosity how many games do you do a year?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by constable

6 assignments in a week is busy? Out of curiosity how many games do you do a year?

6 of 7 days isn't busy to you?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by constable

6 assignments in a week is busy? Out of curiosity how many games do you do a year?

Most definitely busy for me. Just realized I have 7 games this week.

Not working much HS ball this season b/c of a contract controversy that is happening locally. But even in a normal season 4 games in a week would be the most I'd want to do.

I started officiating when I needed extra income due to my first marriage breaking up and I always had a 50/50 split on custodial time with my children. So I've never been a available to work a high number of games in a week. Back in my early days there were those weekends where I'd work a whole bunch of AAU games but then the next weekend I would work zero.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

.... 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.
....

There is no doubt B24 contacted W24 prior to B24's action. The only debate would be whether or not that contact constituted a foul.

[Toren]

I got a flagrant for punch being thrown. But I agree it's debatable given the angle of the video and the distance from the play.

However, does anyone else have a problem with the fact that players from both teams are walking all over the court? The L is talking to the player who just got punched, the other two are talking to each other. There are 9 players unaccounted.

This could have gotten uglier.