Steal, Foul, and Altercation (Video)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Would the fact that the foul nearly led to a brawl affect whether you called an intentional or flagrant?

I ask because keeping that player in the game could increase the possibility of retaliation later, leading to another altercation that could be more serious. It may be a good idea to remove him from the game.

Not so much, but it was a dangerous play. Remember we are there to also protect the kids, if that is not flagrant, I really do not know what is. And the reaction would help show me how they felt about this and could help in the decision, but I thought it was flagrant before I saw the reaction. It is amazing to me he did not get hurt.

Peace

[ODJ]

If an AD or Principal comes onto the court to restore order and remove players, I'm not punishing that.

[walt]

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.

[Moosie74]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not so much, but it was a dangerous play. Remember we are there to also protect the kids, if that is not flagrant, I really do not know what is. And the reaction would help show me how they felt about this and could help in the decision, but I thought it was flagrant before I saw the reaction. It is amazing to me he did not get hurt.

Peace

Like Jeffrey said we're charged with protecting the players both for this game and down the road as well.

I would go with flagrant because it sends everyone the message that it's not a basketball play and has no place in the game.

I would strongly consider deeming the rest of that a fight for the same reason.

[Matt S.]

And herein lies a simple difference of perspective into what our role as an official is.

I had an NCAA-W exhibition game last night; small point guard gets trapped near sideline, starts pivoting and gets popped in face by a defenders finger. I call a foul, the point guard decided to continue through the whistle--no contact, no words, just frustrated. We calmed everyone down, I reported the foul, and we continued to play.

My point is, some officials seem to want to look to penalize just for the sake of penalizing while other officials are looking to keep players IN the game...I happen to try to fall into the latter category.

The foul in this video, IMO, is not close to flagrant. The contact was not excessive, nor was it "violent or savage in nature." The players were moving very quickly, and both ball handler and defender were airborne when contact occurred. That's why I'm going with an F1 on the initial play--and obviously having a heightened awareness throughout the rest of the game.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

And herein lies a simple difference of perspective into what our role as an official is.

I had an NCAA-W exhibition game last night; small point guard gets trapped near sideline, starts pivoting and gets popped in face by a defenders finger. I call a foul, the point guard decided to continue through the whistle--no contact, no words, just frustrated. We calmed everyone down, I reported the foul, and we continued to play.

My point is, some officials seem to want to look to penalize just for the sake of penalizing while other officials are looking to keep players IN the game...I happen to try to fall into the latter category.

The foul in this video, IMO, is not close to flagrant. The contact was not excessive, nor was it "violent or savage in nature." The players were moving very quickly, and both ball handler and defender were airborne when contact occurred. That's why I'm going with an F1 on the initial play--and obviously having a heightened awareness throughout the rest of the game.

I disagree I do believe the foul was excessive. The definition of excessive is going beyond what is normal. This was not normal. It was not a basketball play and was a move that would lead to injury quite often. This isn't a normal clip of two high flyers getting tangled up leading to a big spill. This is a defender who is not air born shoving an air born shooter in the back.

IMO looking to keep players in the game should not be a consideration. This wouldn't be an official looking to penalize this would be an official enforcing the rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

And herein lies a simple difference of perspective into what our role as an official is.

I had an NCAA-W exhibition game last night; small point guard gets trapped near sideline, starts pivoting and gets popped in face by a defenders finger. I call a foul, the point guard decided to continue through the whistle--no contact, no words, just frustrated. We calmed everyone down, I reported the foul, and we continued to play.

My point is, some officials seem to want to look to penalize just for the sake of penalizing while other officials are looking to keep players IN the game...I happen to try to fall into the latter category.

The foul in this video, IMO, is not close to flagrant. The contact was not excessive, nor was it "violent or savage in nature." The players were moving very quickly, and both ball handler and defender were airborne when contact occurred. That's why I'm going with an F1 on the initial play--and obviously having a heightened awareness throughout the rest of the game.

I don't think it's fair to say they "look to penalize just for the sake of penalizing." To me, that statement indicates you really don't understand their perspective.

That's the equivalent of the claim that you're too scared to make the right call, which also would display a similar misundertanding.

As for the foul in the video, I'm probably going to measure that in my mind, if I'm on the court, to see if I want to upgrade to flagrant (NFHS). It's probably going to be decided by what I've seen from that player during the game. It may be a good opportunity to get rid of a problem. It's right on the edge, IMO.

I don't see an airborne defender, I see a running defender who, at best, intentionally runs through an airborne and off balance shooter putting his safety at risk.

I have to ask, though, based on your description in red, why would you even call this an F1?

[Matt S.]

Great points, both of you. If you look back in the thread, I did mention that we don't know where in the game this occurred, and if there's any history that warrants an F2.

By definition, you call an Intentional/F1 when pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score.

I don't have the NFHS book in front of me, but I believe you call an intentional regardless of the severity of the act, which is why I stated what I did (again, no book to quote in this case)

[BryanV21]

My #1 concern is the safety of the players.

[Raymond]

I see the defender put his hands out and run through the airborne offensive player. Based on what I'm seeing on the video I have a Flagrant in HS rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

Great points, both of you. If you look back in the thread, I did mention that we don't know where in the game this occurred, and if there's any history that warrants an F2.

By definition, you call an Intentional/F1 when pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score.

I don't have the NFHS book in front of me, but I believe you call an intentional regardless of the severity of the act, which is why I stated what I did (again, no book to quote in this case)

You mentioned both of these players were airborne, I read that to imply you felt he was playing the ball. My mistake. Fouling from behind isn't necessarily an intentional foul, it happens all the time on layups and fast breaks while a defender is trying to catch up. This is intimidation and punishment.

After watching this on a bigger screen, I'm with BNR. I'll call this a flagrant and not lose a moment's sleep over it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't see an airborne defender, I see a running defender who, at best, intentionally runs through an airborne and off balance shooter putting his safety at risk.

I have to ask, though, based on your description in red, why would you even call this an F1?

Contact which puts an off balance shooter at risk can still be a common foul. I agree with the post above that the contact was neither excessive nor of a violent or savage nature. What I see is "contact which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Contact which puts an off balance shooter at risk can still be a common foul. I agree with the post above that the contact was neither excessive nor of a violent or savage nature. What I see is "contact which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position."

I happen to think it was all of the above, but I can see how some wouldn't given what we see in the video. This is at least close enough to the line that those on either side really can't fault those on the other side.

[JetMetFan]

From my view:

*Flagrant personal on Black #32
*Flagrant T on the asst. who came off White's bench
*Flagrant T on the asst. who came off Black's bench
*Each HC picks up one IT
*White #4 shoots two FTs and White gets the ball at the spot of the foul

I'm impressed no players - that we can see - came off the bench in this situation. As for the adults, they may have been there to help but they're also supposed to know better. The HC is the only one who gets to come onto the court and from what I can see neither of them did (I'm judging the HC to be the guys who were sitting/standing closest to the scorer's table when the play began).

I'm going flagrant for the same reason as those before me: Black #32's action put White #4 in danger, mainly due to the arm extension on contact. If he just reaches out and grabs the shooter that's something different. Put it this way, is this a foul you want to see Black #32 commit more than once during the game? Because if an IF is called he has the chance to do it again.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Contact which puts an off balance shooter at risk can still be a common foul. I agree with the post above that the contact was neither excessive nor of a violent or savage nature. What I see is "contact which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position."

I saw a two handed shove on an airborne player which caused airborne player's body to go parallel to the floor. Intentional act, non basketball play, out of frustration. They weren't tangled up etc. Players at this level know vulnerability of airborne players. This was certainly an act which neutralized an opponents obvious position. It was also an intentional act that was not only likely to cause injury, but potentially catastrophic injury. The fact that the shove wasnt as violent as it could have been (he could have flipped him all the way over...) doesn't take it out of flagrant territory imo.