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...
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. :lol:
Yeah, I was very surprised that the officials basically let him continue playing in a manner that had nothing to do with basketball.
"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.
#3 is really fucked up. He just clothes-lined him out of the air. That jackass is smirking it up too.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
"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.
Bill Laimbeer found the fountain of youth.
Heh if that style of play is okay, I wonder if brass knuckles are going to become standard equipment. :D
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
"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.
Quote from: crazy canuckalso, 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.
What makes a foul "flagrant"?
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.
He might be a linebacker. HS teams usually have a few dual sports meatheads.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 03, 2012, 09:22:22 PM
He might be a linebacker. HS teams usually have a few dual sports meatheads.
It's Prime Time Baby!
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 07:52:20 PM
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.
Quote#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.
Quote from: RazWhat 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.
For some reason, I read the thread was going to be about a new ABBA video. :Embarrass:
Quote from: mongers on January 03, 2012, 09:49:25 PM
For some reason, I read the thread was going to be about a new ABBA video. :Embarrass:
I don't think there will be any new ABBA videos...
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 09:47:34 PM
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.
Okay, thanks.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 09:47:34 PM
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 07:52:20 PM
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.
Yeah, I was going off of the general definition of intentional. I was pretty sure that in the rules it was defined in a more technical manner, but wasn't sure of the details.
Flagrant Foul #3 looks like the kid's face went right into 34's sweaty armpit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 03, 2012, 06:26:02 PM
Bill Laimbeer found the fountain of youth.
:lol:
Hey, a sports joke I got.
Anyway, after reviewing the video: if I could breathe after Foul #5 (the clothesline), I'd have punched 34 in the fucking face. But then, I played soccer, where this is red card worthy, but still basically acceptable behavior.
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 10:03:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 09:47:34 PM
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 07:52:20 PM
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.
Yeah, I was going off of the general definition of intentional. I was pretty sure that in the rules it was defined in a more technical manner, but wasn't sure of the details.
Yeah, the technical definition includes:
A foul shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact.
I think they actually added that phrase a few years ago, before that they just wanted it called that way.
They really should change the name to something else. I don't know how many times I have to hear "but he played the ball! He didn't mean to piledrive that kid into the floor like that! How can the be intentional???"
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 11:12:23 PM
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 10:03:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 09:47:34 PM
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 07:52:20 PM
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.
Yeah, I was going off of the general definition of intentional. I was pretty sure that in the rules it was defined in a more technical manner, but wasn't sure of the details.
Yeah, the technical definition includes:
A foul shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact.
I think they actually added that phrase a few years ago, before that they just wanted it called that way.
They really should change the name to something else. I don't know how many times I have to hear "but he played the ball! He didn't mean to piledrive that kid into the floor like that! How can the be intentional???"
What about situations towards the end of a game, when a team is deliberately trying to foul the player who has the ball in order to stop the clock? Isn't that an intentional foul, even if there's no excessive contact?
Also, is "excessive contact" itself defined, or is it a judgement call?
Quote from: dps on January 04, 2012, 12:40:39 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 11:12:23 PM
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 10:03:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2012, 09:47:34 PM
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 07:52:20 PM
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.
Yeah, I was going off of the general definition of intentional. I was pretty sure that in the rules it was defined in a more technical manner, but wasn't sure of the details.
Yeah, the technical definition includes:
A foul shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact.
I think they actually added that phrase a few years ago, before that they just wanted it called that way.
They really should change the name to something else. I don't know how many times I have to hear "but he played the ball! He didn't mean to piledrive that kid into the floor like that! How can the be intentional???"
What about situations towards the end of a game, when a team is deliberately trying to foul the player who has the ball in order to stop the clock? Isn't that an intentional foul, even if there's no excessive contact?
Technically, yes. Practically, the expectation is that you make an effort to play the ball, and as long as you do we will pretend like we don't know that you are fouling to stop the clock.
That is why if you see a "stop the clock" foul NOT against the ball handler, it must almost always be intentional. Otherwise, they would just tackle the worst free throw shooter. So the deal is that we will pretend we don't know you are just trying to stop the clock, but you have to be fouling the ball handler - hence the offense has the chance to get that ball to a decent free throw shooter.
Quote
Also, is "excessive contact" itself defined, or is it a judgement call?
Judgement call.
It can be a kiss upon the cheek, a stroke of the hair, a gentle caress of the buttock.
Or a guy pulling you by your neck in midair and planting you into the hardwood.
Quote from: Ideologue on January 04, 2012, 12:47:11 AM
It can be a kiss upon the cheek, a stroke of the hair, a gentle caress of the buttock.
Or a guy pulling you by your neck in midair and planting you into the hardwood.
Doing the former would likely result in the later.
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2012, 07:52:20 PM
I agree that #2 is just a common foul. Unless I'm missing something, so is #6.
#6 started out as a foul but when he continued with the motion of the arm and ripped the other kid down to the ground imo that is when it became flagrant.