Not Shocker B Ball but have you seen this?

[kcshocker11]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/video-flagrant-foul-no-calls-basketball-game-goes-133731387.html


foul #5 is brutal:black_eyed:

[ShockTalk]

That was brutal!! I'll disagree with the article that said only #5 was flagrant. Only #2 was not. #5 should have gotten him tossed from ever playing again. Those guys are nothing but thugs.

If you watch "brutus", after a couple of the fouls, he's even snickering about it. Except for #42, his teammates also appear to be embarrased by being on the same team with those two. @SubGod22: and @ShockRef:, what say you.

[RoyalShock]

Those refs should never be allowed to officiate another game. And I don't know what the rules allow, but I'd have tossed the coach too for not getting control of his team. You can't tell me that two guys from the same team fouling like that is a coincidence.

I agree with those who say only #2 isn't flagrant.

[OTR Shockfan]

For the most part it looks like they were just TOO slow for the game of hoops. they were making basketball moves just way too slow for the quicker team. they look like football players trying to lumber around a basketball court. I dint see any flagrant (malice) in there actions , except for the rebound shove and even on that 50 50 on flagrant. but what do I know anyways

[WuDrWu]

I have to take an alternative stance. I thought 1 of the fouls was bad, but the others were more a combination of a big, fat, strong, slow, clumsy oaf colliding with a much smaller player.

We are seeing one side of the argument, and I suspect there is more to the story than meets this eye, but IF the refs did nothing more than we saw, they should find alternative work.

[pinstripers]

4 of them intentional and flagrant. No doubt. None at all.

[1972Shocker]

I did not think #1 or #2 were flagrant or intentional. However, #3, #4 and #5 all looked worthy of an intentional/flagrant call. On #5 it's a miracle that the kid in maroon was not seriously hurt (or worse).

I thought #4 was intentional but not necessarily flagrant. #3 and #5 were definitley flagrant fouls.

On the #5 foul Vanderbilt clotheslined him with his left arm and as the player was falling to the floor Vanderbilt spun around and swung at him again with his right arm although I don't think he made much contact. #3 was about as bad. Vanderbilt was doing nothing but head hunting on that play. If you did that in an NFL game to a quarterback or a receiver you would get a nice fine from the commissioner's office.

[ShockTalk]

I have to take an alternative stance. I thought 1 of the fouls was bad, but the others were more a combination of a big, fat, strong, slow, clumsy oaf colliding with a much smaller player.

We are seeing one side of the argument, and I suspect there is more to the story than meets this eye, but IF the refs did nothing more than we saw, they should find alternative work.

Well, whatever. I looked at it more closely based on your post. I'd call 3 of the fouls "hard clothesline swipes", with intent. Only basketball move, using the term loosely, was #6. #34 more than once snickered, chuckled, and laughed. In fact he and one of the refs had a good laugh about #3 foul, the one that could have seriously injuried the "victim". #42 and #34 were buds and none of the other teammates had anything to do with them. One even help an opponent up while the oaf walked off.

Big, fat, strong, slow, clumsy oaf is no excuse when you don't care about the other player and he didn't.

[Kung Wu]

I'm just wondering why Trop hasn't posted if we have made contact with "The Enforcer" yet? We could use one of those Saturday. Maybe we could bring John Chaney out of retirement as an assistant and land this guy!

[Aargh]

If somebody in that league gets hurt, I can see successful lawsuits. Officiating that loosely is criminally neligent of the potential injuries that could result.

I've played pickup games against East Coast guys where if you guarded too close - or got too hot - you were going to get hammered. I've heard more than a ferw stories of literally punching a shooter in the mouth while he was shooting. The player got called for the foul but the shooter was a bit more hesitant the next time he got the ball.

I've had a shooter fake me into the air and intentionally hit me in the chin with a shoulder when I was on the way down and he was on the way up. I nearly bit off a half inch of my tongue. He told me to stop guarding him that close. At the HS level, there's been a lot of "enforcement" going on for a long time.

[RallySquirrel]

I'd like to see them pull that crud against Hall...

[SubGod22]

I'm not sure I'd call any of them flagrant. You might be able to go with an intentional on number 5, but I think it looked bad because the kid is not an athelete. He's big, strong and slow and it makes it all look worse. You might be able to call number 4 intentional but I doubt I would in that situation. I think 5 looked as bad as it did because the kid went airborne and the big kid flat out can't jump or move well.

My notes on them:

1 - A hard foul by an unathletic kid
2 - Not sure why anyone would call that flagrant. Stupid, yes. Flagrant, no.
3 - Just unathletic and bad timing.
4 - Another stupid, frustration foul. Could go intentional, especially depending on how the game had gone, but not flagrant.
5 - The kid is not an athlete. Could go intentional. Maybe.
6 - Dumb foul.

Being as big and unathletic as he is it's going to make things appear worse than they really are sometimes. I think that's mostly the case in this one. But you also have to be there and see the entire game to know what's going on and how the kids play. I think we can comfortably say this kid doesn't move well and that's why it looks so bad. It would be different if you knew the kid moved well and could jump. Then these things would look a lot worse that they are. Little snippets aren't fair to the kid, the game or the officials.

[WuDrWu]

I'm not sure I'd call any of them flagrant. You might be able to go with an intentional on number 5, but I think it looked bad because the kid is not an athelete. He's big, strong and slow and it makes it all look worse. You might be able to call number 4 intentional but I doubt I would in that situation. I think 5 looked as bad as it did because the kid went airborne and the big kid flat out can't jump or move well.

My notes on them:

1 - A hard foul by an unathletic kid
2 - Not sure why anyone would call that flagrant. Stupid, yes. Flagrant, no.
3 - Just unathletic and bad timing.
4 - Another stupid, frustration foul. Could go intentional, especially depending on how the game had gone, but not flagrant.
5 - The kid is not an athlete. Could go intentional. Maybe.
6 - Dumb foul.

Being as big and unathletic as he is it's going to make things appear worse than they really are sometimes. I think that's mostly the case in this one. But you also have to be there and see the entire game to know what's going on and how the kids play. I think we can comfortably say this kid doesn't move well and that's why it looks so bad. It would be different if you knew the kid moved well and could jump. Then these things would look a lot worse that they are. Little snippets aren't fair to the kid, the game or the officials.

Pretty much exactly what I thought Sub.....am I starting to think like an official?? I may have to kill myself.

[SubGod22]

Pretty much exactly what I thought Sub.....am I starting to think like an official?? I may have to kill myself.

When you spend enough time around us, and I know you have a very good one you're around quite a bit, you can pick up a few things. And if you get into discussions I've been told by some friends that it can make you see the game a little differently. You can pick up on some things that officials watch for that the average fan doesn't see or even think about. I still learn things about the game every year.

[Kung Wu]

1 - A hard foul by an unathletic kid
2 - Not sure why anyone would call that flagrant. Stupid, yes. Flagrant, no.
3 - Just unathletic and bad timing.
4 - Another stupid, frustration foul. Could go intentional, especially depending on how the game had gone, but not flagrant.
5 - The kid is not an athlete. Could go intentional. Maybe.
6 - Dumb foul.

I'm not that far away from you on many of these. The trick is to watch only the normal speed version of the foul. Slow motion can take things out of context.

However we have a large discrepancy on #5. There should be absolutely no doubt that it was intentional. I don't see how you can even question that. It's even hard to justify it's not flagrant. He made no effort to make a play on the ball what-so-ever and grabbed the kid when whacking his arm wasn't enough. He's intentionally endangering a player when willing to make no attempt to make a play on the ball, and grab a player going airborne. That's not being unathletic, that's "getting revenge" for not being athletic -- two very different things.

For the most part I agree with the rest of them.