Red coach is getting a T from me and we'll see how he reacts to that before we decide whether to send him to the bus.

I might have been OK with the fact that he was upset, but it seems to go on and on and on with his ranting and pointing. He probably would go with this player too if it was my decision. And I can prove it by the video. That is why IMO we have to just do our job because you never know what is seen.

Peace

Agreed. I think a T here at least shows you tried to address the situation.

I watched the video a few times and I'm baffled by the behavior of the red coach. He clearly couldn't care less if a brawl breaks out. He just wants to berate the refs. His guy committed an obvious intentional foul. What's he complaining about? The only thing I can think of is that the white team must have done something earlier in the game that he wasn't pleased about. In his perception, gotten away with some physical/dirty play, maybe? Near the end you can see him point and gesture at the white coach, who gestures back. Very interesting.

The only thing I could think of was maybe he thought there was a foul on the steal. That doesn't give him the right to act like an idiot, though.

The only thing I think these guys did "wrong" was allow the coach to rant like that. He earned a T long before he gestured to the white coach, and if they'd called it he likely wouldn't have done that.

Possibly because of the definition of Flagrant and Intentional fouls. The rule book leaves it up to interpretation, but to me, this play meets two of the criteria for a intentional foul almost perfectly and doesn't fit the criteria for a flagrant.

Intentional foul:
a) Contact that neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantage (yes)
b) Contact away from the ball ...(N/A)
c) Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball ... (yes)
d) Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball (N/A or yes)
e) Contact with a thrower-in (N/A)

Flagrant Foul:
*violent or savage in nature (I'm leaning no, but it's debatable)
*violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing (no)
*fighting (no)

Not saying that this couldn't be a flagrant ... a lot of officials here think so. But I have a hard time thinking an evaluator is going to downgrade the officials for only calling this an intentional foul as you suggest.

That's what I had assumed as well, but I think Coach Bill may be on to something because I had missed the exchange between head coaches the first few times. There may have been something from earlier in the game because if the HC for Black was wanting a foul on the steal, I don't know why that would have involved pointing at White's HC.

I am in the flagrant camp but I totally agree that I think that this could be argued either way.

Agree that it could be either way but I just do not agree that the distinction would have the ramifications that refinks suggests above. Not calling anything at all would or calling only a common foul might. But, to say that you have to call it flagrant to be a tournament/postseason official is just not true.

I didn't hesitate the first time I watched it and I am not hesitating now. Flagrant foul and then a "T" on Red Coach because he is not helping, he is out there just to complain. The airborne player went from one side of the basket out and around the stanchion on the other side. That deserves more than an intentional IMO so the player who shoved him is gone. If the official didn't get in the way, and react as quickly as he did, that was headed to a brawl. White team coach came out and helped so he is ok. The officials do need to get together to figure out bench players.