Latest video from IABBO

[Berkut]

This is some pretty interesting stuff. Just got this emailed to us as IAABBO board members (basketball officials board) for review.

Note that this did not happen in our association...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6v-bW6wxoY&feature=player_embedded

Kind of amazing the kid did not ever get ejected. You would think after the second WWF move the officials would have figured SOMETHING out...

[Razgovory]

My first thought was "wow, that kid looks kinda beefy to be playing basket ball".  Then I saw how Mr. 34 was playing and suddenly understood why they had that guy on the team.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I was very surprised that the officials basically let him continue playing in a manner that had nothing to do with basketball.

[Berkut]

"Flagrant Foul #2" however was neither flagrant or intentional. That is just a common foul.

Flagrant #3 was definitely intentional, and after the first foul (which I would have called intentional, but not flagrant) I would consider this flagrant and ejected the player.

However, if they had called foul #1 intentional and made it clear play that would not be tolerated, perhaps #3 never happens.

Foul #4 was DEFINITELY intentional. You MUST call that intentional, there was no basketball play of any kind there.

Foul #5 was most certainly flagrant no matter what the circumstances are.

[MadImmortalMan]

#3 is really fucked up. He just clothes-lined him out of the air. That jackass is smirking it up too.

[crazy canuck]

"Flagrant Foul #2" however was neither flagrant or intentional. That is just a common foul.

Flagrant #3 was definitely intentional, and after the first foul (which I would have called intentional, but not flagrant) I would consider this flagrant and ejected the player.

However, if they had called foul #1 intentional and made it clear play that would not be tolerated, perhaps #3 never happens.

Foul #4 was DEFINITELY intentional. You MUST call that intentional, there was no basketball play of any kind there.

Foul #5 was most certainly flagrant no matter what the circumstances are.

I agree.  #4 and #5 were ugly.  That kid wasnt there to play basketball.

edit:  also, I have to wonder what the coach is doing.  I have pulled a kid off the court for a lot less than that.

[Ed Anger]

Bill Laimbeer found the fountain of youth.

[Malthus]

Heh if that style of play is okay, I wonder if brass knuckles are going to become standard equipment. 

[dps]

"Flagrant Foul #2" however was neither flagrant or intentional. That is just a common foul.

Flagrant #3 was definitely intentional, and after the first foul (which I would have called intentional, but not flagrant) I would consider this flagrant and ejected the player.

However, if they had called foul #1 intentional and made it clear play that would not be tolerated, perhaps #3 never happens.

Foul #4 was DEFINITELY intentional. You MUST call that intentional, there was no basketball play of any kind there.

Foul #5 was most certainly flagrant no matter what the circumstances are.

Actually, #1 and #3, taken just by themselves, looked to me like you could think that the beefy kid was trying to play the ball, but just lacks the athleticism to make the block.  The way he smirks about it gives lie to that, though. 

I agree that #2 is just a common foul.  Unless I'm missing something, so is #6.

#4 is just as clearly just as intentional and flagrant as #5, but not nearly as vicious or dangerous.

also, I have to wonder what the coach is doing.

Looking at those plays, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that he's coaching them to play that way.

[Razgovory]

What makes a foul "flagrant"?

[Razgovory]

I noticed that after foul #1 someone slapped beefy number #34 some skin.  My guess is that's why he's on the team.  Some of those look like he could cause serious injury.  Kid should have been ejected and made a linebacker or something.

[Ed Anger]

He might be a linebacker. HS teams usually have a few dual sports meatheads.

[jimmy olsen]

He might be a linebacker. HS teams usually have a few dual sports meatheads.

It's Prime Time Baby!

[Berkut]

Actually, #1 and #3, taken just by themselves, looked to me like you could think that the beefy kid was trying to play the ball, but just lacks the athleticism to make the block. 

#3 was definitely intentional by rule. Of course, you have to realize that the rule for intentional fouls also includes excessive contact, even when nominally playing the ball. So you can have an intentional foul even if it isn't "intentional" by the english definition on intentional.

An example of this kind of "intentional" foul is playing the ball on a fast break and putting the shooter into the floor - even if you were playing the ball, if the contact is deemed excessive, it should be ruled intentional.

#4 is just as clearly just as intentional and flagrant as #5, but not nearly as vicious or dangerous.

Intentional yes (not a basketball play and he certainly made no play on the ball), not certainly flagrant. Although if someone called that flagrant, I would not second guess them.

What makes a foul "flagrant"?

A personal or technical foul of violent or savage nature.

Basically, flagrant is when you think the intent of the person is to fight, instigate a fight, or simply an attempt to hurt someone.

[mongers]

For some reason, I read the thread was going to be about a new ABBA video.