The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Flagrant/Intentional (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/85921-flagrant-intentional.html)

Cav0 Sun Jan 15, 2012 06:46pm
Flagrant/Intentional
 
I always enjoy reading this board and don't post much because I'm not an official, but do love to read and learn from the people here. This play was discussed at a recent game I was helping at the table for and the video was posted on youtube so that I could see it and I'd be interested to get your opinions on it.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ShN5j1S2O6o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

just another ref Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:00pm
24 white flagrant personal foul

JRutledge Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:02pm
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. The angle was bad and it would help to know what the officials ruled as well. If the player threw a punch then it is flagrant, but with the contact before that I am not completely sure of that.

Peace

Cav0 Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:09pm
The play was called either an intentional or a technical, I heard the story 2nd hand from people who aren't officials and couldn't tell me for sure and this is the only video I have from the game (Not my schools game, or I'd try to get more video or the book to find out) I can see an official signal a T in the video, but then there was a discussion so I don't know if it was changed.

I do know that no foul was called on the defensive player before the shove and the player was not disqualified on the play.

just another ref Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813666)
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. The angle was bad and it would help to know what the officials ruled as well. If the player threw a punch then it is flagrant, but with the contact before that I am not completely sure of that.

Peace

What does the contact beforehand have to do with the punch?

Scrapper1 Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:10pm
I agree that we can't be sure from the angle. But it LOOKS like she takes her left hand off the ball so that she can throw the elbow into the opponent's face. If that's what she did, then definitely flagrant in NFHS and Flagrant 2 in NCAA.

eyezen Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:11pm
Well one thing for sure its not a technical like the official signaled.

Adam Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:13pm
Looks like a punch to me, but the angle isn't the greatest and it's hard to tell for sure that it wasn't just a quick shove.

It looks like the official gives the T signal (wrong by mechanic, but not necessarily indicative of the final call since there's no specific signal for a flagrant personal foul), so I'm assuming he went with a flagrant.

JRutledge Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref (Post 813670)
What doe the contact beforehand have to do with the punch?
Was the player trying to forcefully get away. It is hard to see that as the defender did seem to either grab the arm or the ball.

Peace

JRutledge Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav0 (Post 813669)
The play was called either an intentional or a technical, I heard the story 2nd hand from people who aren't officials and couldn't tell me for sure and this is the only video I have from the game (Not my schools game, or I'd try to get more video or the book to find out) I can see an official signal a T in the video, but then there was a discussion so I don't know if it was changed.

I do know that no foul was called on the defensive player before the shove and the player was not disqualified on the play.
We do not see the official signal to the table or any information that someone was ejected or where they put the ball in place. And intentional foul is administered very different from a technical foul. And a flagrant foul does not have to be a technical.

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

Peace

Cav0 Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813679)
We do not see the official signal to the table or any information that someone was ejected or where they put the ball in place. And intentional foul is administered very different from a technical foul. And a flagrant foul does not have to be a technical.

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

Peace
Sorry I can't tell you anymore, I wasn't there. Based on what was described to me, the player was not ejected and participated further in the game and the team in black received 2 free throws and retained possession, though I do not know the spot of the following throw-in. I said intentional or flagrant, since those would both carry that result (without knowing the spot of the throw-in).

BillyMac Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:45pm
My Opinion ...
 
Flagrant personal foul charged to White 24. Two free throws for Blue 24. Blue gets the ball back at the spot closest to the foul. White 24 "ejected" to the bench.

I could also understand an intentional foul here, but that wouldn't be my call.

No technical foul here because all the contact was during a live ball.

Sharpshooternes Sun Jan 15, 2012 07:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813679)
We do not see the official signal to the table or any information that someone was ejected or where they put the ball in place. And intentional foul is administered very different from a technical foul. And a flagrant foul does not have to be a technical.

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

Peace
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?

JRutledge Sun Jan 15, 2012 08:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 813703)
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?
There is no "mechanic." As kind of illustrated when someone is ejecting someone from the game they verbalize the action and give the "heave ho" signal on some level. Again nothing mechanically to make that clear, but you need to make it clear that someone is not coming back into the game.

At the table I give the "thumb" signal like you used to see from really old-time baseball umpires.

Peace

Adam Sun Jan 15, 2012 08:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav0 (Post 813685)
Sorry I can't tell you anymore, I wasn't there. Based on what was described to me, the player was not ejected and participated further in the game and the team in black received 2 free throws and retained possession, though I do not know the spot of the following throw-in. I said intentional or flagrant, since those would both carry that result (without knowing the spot of the throw-in).
It wasn't flagrant, then, or she wouldn't have played any more of that game.

BillyMac Sun Jan 15, 2012 08:17pm
Intentional Personal Foul ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 813712)
It wasn't flagrant, then, or she wouldn't have played any more of that game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav0 (Post 813685)
The team in black received 2 free throws and retained possession.
So the official must have ruled it an intentional personal foul. I could live with that, but I would have gone flagrant personal foul.

bainsey Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813679)
I cannot tell if this is a "get off me" shove or a full out punch to the chest of face.
My first look had the former, so I'd have an intentional.

Welpe Mon Jan 16, 2012 08:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey (Post 813770)
My first look had the former, so I'd have an intentional.
Same here.

JugglingReferee Mon Jan 16, 2012 08:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav0 (Post 813662)
I always enjoy reading this board and don't post much because I'm not an official, but do love to read and learn from the people here. This play was discussed at a recent game I was helping at the table for and the video was posted on youtube so that I could see it and I'd be interested to get your opinions on it.
Easiest flagrant ever. See ya sista.

Rich Mon Jan 16, 2012 08:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee (Post 813812)
Easiest flagrant ever. See ya sista.
Ooh, I have a prediction. Let's see if it comes true.

twocentsworth Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:30am
without any doubt in my mind....that is a flagrant foul (NFHS) or flagrant 2 (NCAA). Player ejected; 2 FT's for defense; ball put in at mid-court (NFHS) or ball put in at spot nearest foul (NCAA).

I would go to my partner (as the calling official did), tell them what I have, and ONLY change my call if they they me they saw the play and STRONGLY disagreed.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:33am
Here is what I saw on the video.

It appeared the B-24 made illegal contact with her right hand on W-24's left arm and the covering official did not consider the contact a foul. W-24 then punched B-24 in her face with her left hand. Since the ball was Live, when W-24 punched B-24, the foul is a PF and since it was a punch it was a FPF and W-24 should have been disqualified from the game. The covering official incorrectly signaled a TF.

But if the covering official intended to call a PF on B-24 but did not have time to react to B-24's PF against W-24 then W-24's contact was a FTF because her contact was made when the ball was Dead, and we now have FDF.

On a side note, in what state was this game played. I dig the gray officiating shirts.

MTD, Sr.

mbyron Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 813703)
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?
NFHS has no "official" mechanic for a flagrant foul. This kind of thing is much more about game management than precise mechanics anyway. Here's what I would do:

1. Call the foul as the official did, but not signal a T (one thing this cannot be).
2. Given that we have a strange situation that's potentially volatile (esp. if it had been boys), I'm immediately sending both teams toward their benches.
3. Then I can talk to my partners and talk through whether I want to go INT or flagrant on this.
4. Next I report the foul to the table: white, 24, intentional/flagrant foul, (24 is disqualified if flagrant); I use the football DQ signal (thumb back over your shoulder) for a DQ.
5. We just don't have many of these fouls in the leagues I work: I would get the coaches together in front of the table, tell them what I saw, and why I decided to go intentional or flagrant. I'll answer a reasonable question or two, but it's not a debate.
6. I might also tell them (esp. if it had been boys) that we have addressed the problem, and we won't have any retaliation later in the game.
7. Shoot FT's with the lane cleared, give the ball to the fouled team at the spot, and play on.

Adam Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by twocentsworth (Post 813825)
without any doubt in my mind....that is a flagrant foul (NFHS) or flagrant 2 (NCAA). Player ejected; 2 FT's for defense; ball put in at mid-court (NFHS) or ball put in at spot nearest foul (NCAA).
Nope.

Unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, this throw in should be at the spot nearest the foul in NFHS.

Raymond Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:31am
I have a flagrant personal foul on A1 based I'm what I'm seeing from this angle.

Might have had a foul on B1 first in that situation.

IUgrad92 Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:51am
To say that Blue made illegal contact is a 'guess' from anyone, based on the camera angle. At the time Blue slaps down at the ball, you cannot see either Blue's left hand, W24 hands, or even the ball. That's called being 'straight-lined'. It appears that C didn't have the best angle, and L was straight-lined as well, thus no initial call.

W24's strike to the face/head is a flagarant act. If, and a big if at that, this was a 'push off', then W24 chose the wrong body part. She definitely had other options, but targetted the head.

jTheUmp Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 813843)
I have a flagrant personal foul on A1 based I'm what I'm seeing from this angle.

Might have had a foul on B1 first in that situation.

Ok, so let's say we call the foul on B1, and then A1 retaliates after the whistle for B's foul. Then B1 gets the common foul, and A1 is disqualified with a Flagrant T, correct?

If so, then the order of operations would be:
1) false double foul (common on B1, flagrant T on A1).
2) A1 is disqualified.
2) A1's replacement shoots 1-2 FTs (if A is in the bonus), with the lane cleared.
3) Any player(s) or substitute(s) for B shoot 2 FTs for the flagrant T.
4) Throw-in for B at division line opposite table.

Did I get that right?

Welpe Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:59am
Never mind...case of the Mondays got me.

Scrapper1 Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp (Post 813855)
Ok, so let's say we call the foul on B1, and then A1 retaliates after the whistle for B's foul. Then B1 gets the common foul, and A1 is disqualified with a Flagrant T, correct?

4) Throw-in for B at division line opposite table.

Did I get that right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 813858)
Almost but this one is not correct.
Seems right to me. . .

Adam Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 813858)
Almost but this one is not correct.
Why not?

Welpe Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 813865)
Why not?
Ugh...because I'm an idiot?

Eastshire Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813679)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 813881)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 01:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 813881)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 01:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813887)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 01:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 813890)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 02:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 813890)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 02:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 813917)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 04:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813924)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 06:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 813949)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 813949)
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. :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 813949)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 813949)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 07:12pm
I believe...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes (Post 813703)
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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 07:22pm
Not Apporved For NFHS, Or IAABO ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ga314ref (Post 813999)
You cross your forearms over your head and then bring them down in front of you.
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6001/5...942a16cb_m.jpg

ga314ref Mon Jan 16, 2012 07:25pm
Any idea...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 814002)
...as to why they took the flagrant mechanic away from NFHS? Thanks.

JRutledge Mon Jan 16, 2012 07:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ga314ref (Post 814005)
...as to why they took the flagrant mechanic away from NFHS? Thanks.
I do not know that there ever was one.

Peace

APG Mon Jan 16, 2012 07:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ga314ref (Post 814005)
...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).

Cav0 Mon Jan 16, 2012 07:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 813826)
On a side note, in what state was this game played. I dig the gray officiating shirts.

MTD, Sr.
The game was played in Texas, most chapters around here have gone to the gray shirts for varsity games and even a good bit of the subvarsity games as well.

Thanks for the good discussion everyone, if I get to talk to the coach of either team in later games (my school does play both schools later on) I'll see if I can find out anymore information. Again, thanks for all the talk and info on this video and other that come up on this site.

Raymond Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 813949)
.... 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 Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:16pm
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.

IUgrad92 Tue Jan 17, 2012 05:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813992)
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. :confused:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813992)
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813992)
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 Tue Jan 17, 2012 06:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 814305)
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. :confused:
OoooKaaaaayyy?? What is your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 814305)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 814305)
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 814305)
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IUgrad92 (Post 814305)
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 Tue Jan 17, 2012 06:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813992)
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. :rolleyes:



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 Tue Jan 17, 2012 09:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 813708)
There is no "mechanic." As kind of illustrated when someone is ejecting someone from the game they verbalize the action and give the "heave ho" signal on some level. Again nothing mechanically to make that clear, but you need to make it clear that someone is not coming back into the game.

At the table I give the "thumb" signal like you used to see from really old-time baseball umpires.

Peace
Like the C coming in here to inform Bynum he's a goon....

"><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rO3Rq2urlL8" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

constable Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 814315)
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 Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by constable (Post 814344)
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?

constable Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 814345)
6 of 7 days isn't busy to you?
I work rotating 12 hour shifts, so I don't work nearly as much as some people but it isn't uncommon me to work 4 high school league assignments (Jv and V double headers) through the week and then another 5-6 double headers on the weekend.....

Rich Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by constable (Post 814380)
I work rotating 12 hour shifts, so I don't work nearly as much as some people but it isn't uncommon me to work 4 high school league assignments (Jv and V double headers) through the week and then another 5-6 double headers on the weekend.....
We work single games here. A JV crew works the JV game. There are *no* HS games on Wednesdays and Sundays. I work no rec ball. So working 6 games (4 days during the week and 2 on Saturdays (afternoon/evening)) is about as good as it gets around here.

A full season is about 45-60 assignments around here. That's enough. I'd gladly work 2 games a night, but they just don't do that and working one BV game is enough for me, especially since many of our games are still 2-person.

Raymond Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by constable (Post 814344)
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.

Lcubed48 Wed Jan 18, 2012 03:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 814383)
Most definitely busy for me. Just realized I have 7 games this week.
When is the BNR road show coming to the River City?

Raymond Wed Jan 18, 2012 04:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lcubed48 (Post 814414)
When is the BNR road show coming to the River City?
Won't know that until around June. I heard rumor that your new commissioner has been named, is that true?

Lcubed48 Thu Jan 19, 2012 03:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 814574)
Won't know that until around June. I heard rumor that your new commissioner has been named, is that true?
I've PM'ed you on this matter.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1