Steal, Foul, and Altercation (Video)

[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 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.

I think two assistants from white team came onto the floor. Guy who came running across first and fellow in white pants. Head coach of black had black top and gold pants on. He was on floor. An assistant of his also came across the floor. I did not see any players come off either bench.

Hard to tell if there is any T on white for retaliation. Can't hear words or tell if there was a shove worthy of T. The head coach of black is pointing and screaming in middle of court. probably need to penalize him for,that.

Assuming no retaliation T on white--NfHs penalize in order things occur.

White team player shoots two for the flagrant foul. Since two assistants of white were on floor and only one of black, black gets two free throws. All 3 ejected. Each head coach gets one indirect when bench personnel leave bench but do not participate.

Last thing penalized is the T to black head coach?? White gets two more throws and ball at division line.

administration is a pain but I think you go back and forth for FT in high school cause penalizing in order they occur???could be way off base. Thx

[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.