First Flagrant

[Sharpshooternes]

Had a boys JV game tonight. For the most part was a pretty good game. There was one player on each team that was pretty physical, a little extra pushing and what not so I was keeping my eye on them. Midway through third period, two of the bigs were in the lane fighting for position on a rebound. White 20 started to go down and from my angle at lead he decided that if he was going down he was taking the other guy with him. He put his arm around Blue 5's neck and took him to the ground with him, landed on his head and then delayed letting go and letting him up.

I pretty much tossed him right then. He was definitely getting an intentional which is what my P had. He thought that the flagrant was a bit excessive because players in our state have to sit out the next game in this case, the varsity game the same night.
I still feel like it was a warranted flagrant but next time I would just hold any signal until after talking with my P and then making a decision. Partners rationale was that yeah a punch they are definitely gone. but didn't think this warranted disqualification.
My rationale was from the flagrant foul rule.
Rule: 4-19-4


ART. 4

A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable *conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive *conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

I thought it was a definite display of unacceptable conduct and definitely toeing the line of violent/savage. Any thoughts or experiences to help me process this would be appreciated.

[JRutledge]

Based on what you described, I am totally comfortable with your call. And if a player has to do all that, they do not need to play the next game. And you were there and should trust your judgment. What you described was totally unacceptable IMO.

Peace

[Eastshire]

As I read your description, he drove his opponent's head into the ground. Yeah, I'm fine with flagrant.

[Rich]

Subsequent penalty beyond disqualification from the game is of no concern of the officials. Penalize because of the act, not the punishment that goes with it.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

Subsequent penalty beyond disqualification from the game is of no concern of the officials. Penalize because of the act, not the punishment that goes with it.

This.

I don't care if they suspend him for 0 or the rest of the season. My job is to deal with this game.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

He thought that the flagrant was a bit excessive because players in our state have to sit out the next game in this case, the varsity game the same night.

I HATE this mentality. We do not determine the punishments - we merely call what happens. We should not base our call on whether we think they deserve the punishment (in this case, sitting out a game) or not. We base our call on what we see. If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, that's an issue between the coach/school and the state.

Had a football official call defensive holding on what was really interference (and couldn't have been holding). I ask why at halftime and he said, "it was really light interference, and he didn't want to penalize the full 15 yards." Ugh!

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rich

subsequent penalty beyond disqualification from the game is of no concern of the officials. Penalize because of the act, not the punishment that goes with it.

+1000