ShopMobileRadio RSSRivals.com Yahoo! Sports


Ask the Ref
Register User Options
Site: Forum:


Post New topic Post New Poll Post Reply   Page 1

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Back to Threads
You be the judge.

Link: Flagrant foul no-calls Highland @ Connell 12/22/11
Posted on 1/6 12:28 PM | IP: Logged

Considering it was out context and ignoring the repeated slow motion; common personal fouls.



Posted on 1/9 12:41 PM | IP: Logged

Hmph...I can't agree with you.

Posted on 1/9 5:01 PM | IP: Logged

"David Pierce, a 30-year veteran of the Tri-Cities Sports Officials Association, took issue with Christenson's contention, saying the referees did their job during the game.
"There were no problems and no fights. It's getting painted as flagrant fouls or intentional fouls, but it doesn't have anything to do with that," Pierce said. "The guy took a camera and jaded it. He didn't show the whole game. He showed six plays.""

I don't know, I think filmed and cut in the same way there'd be a lot of flage fouls.



Posted on 1/9 5:55 PM | IP: Logged

Intentional fouls can also be called when there is excessive contact. Flagrant fouls are fouls that have intent to injure a player. These fouls are at the officials discretion, but sometimes this call early can prevent this type of situation from happening over and over.

Posted on 1/10 11:32 AM | IP: Logged

From what I've read all the fouls depicted were in the first ten minutes of the game and both the players villainized in the video only had one foul the rest of the way combined. Statements from both Connell and Highland said that there was a lot of trash talking and that both sides were playing very physical. There weren't any fights and it doesn't appear the game degenerated, in fact the opposite, so to me you have to assume that the refs got the game under control sans evidence that they didn't.

My comment was about context. You can take a video of someone doing almost anything over a day and zoom in and isolate a fraction of the whole and show those short clips repeatedly in slow motion with leading commentary and get an entirely different perspective than had the whole course of the event been viewed at normal speed sans commentary. Now, with context and neutral editing perhaps I'd agree with the majority and called the hard drive where the ball was taken down after the block attempt was started and the kid hit the floor hard might have been a flage and the push out front might have been an intentional. But lacking context I see fouls just as hard every week that aren't called intentional or flages.

A Question on aside; on the push out front it looked like a Highland player gained control of the ball and as the Connell player was coming out a second Highland player came between the Connell player and the Highland player with the ball; had the Connell player not shoved the Highland player between him and the ball but just run into him wouldn't that be a blocking foul on Highland?

This post was edited on 1/10 1:28 PM by col-pul



Posted on 1/10 1:25 PM | IP: Logged

Col-pul, you're grasping at straws, whatever that means. Some of these fouls were intentional and even flagrant.



Posted on 1/11 12:06 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by col-pul:
"David Pierce, a 30-year veteran of the Tri-Cities Sports Officials Association, took issue with Christenson's contention, saying the referees did their job during the game.
"There were no problems and no fights. It's getting painted as flagrant fouls or intentional fouls, but it doesn't have anything to do with that," Pierce said. "The guy took a camera and jaded it. He didn't show the whole game. He showed six plays."



He's entitled to his opinion. He's in damage control mode in my opinion. Just because there isn't a fight doesn't mean you you did your job. I'm not influenced by the repeated slo-mo replays or his commentary. I know what I would have called in each situation the first time I saw each play.

#1, As it's the first foul, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt and go with common. But grouping it with the others, I've have to say it's excessive contact and therefore intentional.

#2, I have a foul on Red 20 for pushing before the common foul by white 42.

#3, flagrant foul. This is an elbow to the head that was obviously intentionally thrown.

#4, easy intentional foul.

#5, at the very least, this is an intentional foul for excessive contact. Many on the national officiating boards felt it was flagrant.

#6, common foul. Nothing here.

Basd on fouls 1, 3, and 5, the player should have been dealt with as he was intentionally trying to injure other players with his play. That's not basketball.

I read where the AD said you could take game film from anyone's game and find the same type of contact. BS! I've never worked a game where I tolerated a player like #34 going after opponents with hard fouls.

JMO.

Posted on 1/11 3:10 PM | IP: Logged


Originally posted by col-pul:
From what I've read all the fouls depicted were in the first ten minutes of the game and both the players villainized in the video only had one foul the rest of the way combined. Statements from both Connell and Highland said that there was a lot of trash talking and that both sides were playing very physical. There weren't any fights and it doesn't appear the game degenerated, in fact the opposite, so to me you have to assume that the refs got the game under control sans evidence that they didn't.


So the fouls occurred early in the game, then there was physical play and trash talking throughout the game?

Certainly sounds like the game degenerated to me. Calling a couple of hard fouls intentional or tossing #34 early would definitely have gotten control of the game.



My comment was about context. You can take a video of someone doing almost anything over a day and zoom in and isolate a fraction of the whole and show those short clips repeatedly in slow motion with leading commentary and get an entirely different perspective than had the whole course of the event been viewed at normal speed sans commentary. Now, with context and neutral editing perhaps I'd agree with the majority and called the hard drive where the ball was taken down after the block attempt was started and the kid hit the floor hard might have been a flage and the push out front might have been an intentional. But lacking context I see fouls just as hard every week that aren't called intentional or flages.


I'm glad we don't have the type of basketball you see, here where I live.

Like I said, I know what call I'm making when I see the initial play. No need for replays.



A Question on aside; on the push out front it looked like a Highland player gained control of the ball and as the Connell player was coming out a second Highland player came between the Connell player and the Highland player with the ball; had the Connell player not shoved the Highland player between him and the ball but just run into him wouldn't that be a blocking foul on Highland?


No, I would not. A moving screen is legal as long as both the screener and the player being screened are both moving in the same direction. Further, I disagree with your interp that the player stepped in front of #42. Both red players are clearly out in front, going after the ball.

Posted on 1/11 3:19 PM | IP: Logged

That doesn't sound unfair to me.

Had the refs at the game made those calls and people were over the top criticizing them without more context I'd likely be defending them for making those calls too to tell you the truth, and on the same grounds.



Posted on 1/11 3:49 PM | IP: Logged

For what it matters I would agree with FB Ref. When I did BB I would have called them like he pointed out. The foul in the 3rd clip can be a little tough though, if none of the guys had a good angle they could have missed it. I do not remember if it shows which side the guys were on, but there is a chance all they could see was an attempted block. They should have seen it, but I can see why they might not have. It is the only one I would have tossed the kid for though. Clearly he followed through and tried to hurt the kid.



Posted on 1/28 9:29 AM | IP: Logged

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Back to Threads

Post New topic Post New Poll Post Reply Page 1

LATEST NEWS




Rivals.com is your source for: College Football | Football Recruiting | College Basketball | Basketball Recruiting | College Baseball | High School | College Merchandise
Site-specific editorial/photos WashingtonPreps.com. All rights reserved. This website is an officially and independently operated source of news and information not affiliated with any school or team.
About | Advertise with Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | About our Ads | Terms of Service | Copyright/IP policy | Yahoo! Sports - NBC Sports Network

Statistical information 2007 STATS LLC All Rights Reserved.