Steal, Foul, and Altercation (Video)
 

Thoughts? Common foul? Intentional/flagrant 1 or NFHS flagrant/flagrant 2? Thoughts on how the officials handled the players coming together? What about adult personnel coming off the bench? Not exactly sure who the head coach is so pick one for discussion purposes. How would YOU ultimately end up administering everything in this?

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/bEpy_p4pcBk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

intentional foul for sure

This is a lot easier watching the video multiple times than trying to figure it out in real time. At least intentional personal foul on the play. If there were any sort of plays than lead up to this one, probably a flagrant personal foul (Fed). The white player gets a technical. It didn't look to me like he shoved the red player, but if you want to throw him out for fighting, I wouldn't argue. Depending on who is game management (I think the first adult might have been) red has one, maybe two flagrant technicals for adults other than the head coach leaving the bench. The head coach just might get a technical as well depending on what and how he is saying the last part of the video.

Intentional foul for sure and would not argue flagrant at all. These guys did a great job of getting initial control IMO. I have no clue how you would gather all the info without the video. Best guess would be the new T to stand at the scorer's table and tell them to write what he says.

1)You have too many coaches on the floor since it is just to be the head coach to assist in fight control so some bench is getting a T also.
2) The coach in the black that is arguing could easily be whacked too from what I see him doing.

A flagrant personal on the kid in red (#32?) for undercutting the shooter. The red team's head coach (the tall guy, in dark sweater and brown pants?) gets a direct technical: he definitely did not come onto the court to restrain players, but to berate the official.

In real time and without video review, I'd have a difficult time figuring out all the other "fighting/players on the court/bench personnel" fouls, and probably consider all that a wash, DQing no one else (besides #32).

The basket counts, White gets four free throws and then the ball for a throw-in at the point nearest the flagrant foul.

Anyone notice the short kid in white (#3?) keeping his teammates on the bench?

I got a flagrant 2 in college or flagrant in HS. Totally unnecessary and done on purpose IMO.

And I have an issue with the coach on the floor yelling at us and not stopping. He is probably not going to be around either. It looks like only one coach came out on the floor.

Peace

Flagrant personal.

Someone on white is getting whacked for the retaliation (I actually can't tell who retaliated).

The black team head coach is getting whacked for coming onto the court to make a scene.

off the video alone...
 

We don't know where this is in the game, and what has led up to it.

On it's own, I'm going F1/intentional on 32. I'm then T'ing the coach in the black pullover for not getting out of my face as I try to get with my crew to sort things out. I'm also T'ing White 5--at 44 seconds, he continues to taunt black and is demonstrative...that's on film, so it's got to be handled.

In a situation like this, the last thing I'm concerned with is 'too many coaches on the floor'--as long as they're helping break up the fight. The coach who doesn't do that is the one who gets whacked.

Minimum of an intentional. Flagrant a possibility but I'd probably only go there if there were some other prior issues.

Thought the officials handled this very well -- regardless of what was called, they prevented a fight which could have easily turned into a brawl.

Immediate "intentional foul" signal and then stay with that player to prevent retalliation (exactly what was done here). Off officials then focus on preventing any further nonsense between players. I'd discuss with crew, but I think Intentional is appropriate and would not vote for Flagrant.

As was said previously, coaches attempting to prevent/break-up a fight are the least of my concerns. If, while observing players, I happen to "not notice" an assistant coach pulling one of his players back to the bench, I'm fine with that.

The only other call I'd have to consider is on the coach (assuming head coach) in the gold pants. The finger pointing and yelling at the very end of the video is probably crossing the "T" the line for me, given that he had more than enough time to make his point.

[Edit]: looking at this again, the Coach for white who comes charging across the court at ~12 seconds of the video probably needs to be issued a T as he is clearly not the HC (watching where he comes from behind the bench). While he is certainly there to break up any fight, charging off the bench like that is way different that calmly walking out to pull players back.

Yep. It's going to be really hard to see all of the stuff going on around the benches in real time. Keeping order on the court is hard enough.

Definitely an Intentional and most likely a Technical on the black team's coach since he wasn't out there to prevent a fight. I'm giving him one chance to go back to the bench while we sort it out before he gets a Technical. After we huddle and sort things out, then he gets his explanation.

If this is what your are instructed to do in your area, roll with it. However, by rule (NFHS) only the head coach is permitted on the court without penalty. Around here all coaches and ADs know this and the penalty is to be enforced. The expectation is that assisstant coaches are to assist in keeping everyone else on the bench.

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

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

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.

half full vs half empty
 

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.

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?

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)

My #1 concern is the safety of the players.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

Easy call for me, flagrant and ejection. I don't see how any official that has an interest in working postseason or moving up the ladder would call this any differently.

2 things of note for me.. White #3 did a great job of keeping the players on the bench off the floor. Kudos to him for having a level enough head to be able to do that. Not that he wouldn't or hasn't caused problems otherwise, but in that situation, that's the kind of player I want on my side.

Also, anybody think of going 1 step further and ejecting the red teams head coach for his actions? I'll be honest, the thought has crossed my mind.

When I do soccer I have a tool that I use to help decide whether I should give a yellow card or a red card for an 'orange' offense -- one which I could go either way. I ask myself, "Could this foul/action happen again and I would not lose control of the game?" If yes, probably yellow. If no, the action demands a red card and disqualification.

I have a flagrant on this play. This is absolutely something you cannot let happen again, regardless of what happened earlier in the game. I think this is flagrant in the first minute and the last minute.

I don't say this often but these refs did a great job of controlling the situation. As these videos go we don't often get an opportunity to say that. Well done guys.

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.