ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 8, 2012 5:28pm
This is not in Ohio. Not sure of the state, but the youtube comments state "W.I.A.A." Not sure where that is. Can't believe this #34 was not thrown out of the game.
[video=youtube;K6v-bW6wxoY][/video]
[video=youtube;K6v-bW6wxoY][/video]
Old Rider
Posts: 2,470
Jan 9, 2012 8:08am
I would have loved to have played against little fatboy #34 in the white doing all the fouling. He would have done that one time and that would have been it.
THE4RINGZ
Posts: 16,816
Jan 9, 2012 8:18am
Let me guess, the Eagles won the game? They were hard fouls and that kid plays rough probably because he doesn't know how to move his feet and play defense. None of those shown except maybe #5 were flagrant. Just another QQ YouTube post.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 9, 2012 8:25am
I feel that two of them were flagrant (close-line and the elbow to the head). All but one of the others look intentional. Now, in the heat of the moment, not sure. Not sure if I call them flagrant, but at least intentional. The elbow to the head... there is no way in hell he is trying to block that shot.THE4RINGZ;1044641 wrote:Let me guess, the Eagles won the game? They were hard fouls and that kid plays rough probably because he doesn't know how to move his feet and play defense. None of those shown except maybe #5 were flagrant. Just another QQ YouTube post.
G
Gblock
Jan 9, 2012 8:33am
disgraceful
THE4RINGZ
Posts: 16,816
Jan 9, 2012 8:36am
Yeah the elbow to the head happened a second or two after the kid pulls the ball down. I am not saying #34 isn't a dirty player, I just don't see most of those as flagrant. Again, I think the kid makes up for being out of position by pushing and swinging his arms. And, yeah, someone is probably going to get hurt,... in the fight that his style of play is going to start.
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Jan 9, 2012 8:47am
ernest_t_bass;1043399 wrote:This is not in Ohio. Not sure of the state, but the youtube comments state "W.I.A.A." Not sure where that is. Can't believe this #34 was not thrown out of the game.
WIAA is used by Washington and Wisconsin for their athletic associations, so one of those two.
riders1
Posts: 2,275
Jan 9, 2012 9:25am
Connell High School is in Washington state.
GOONx19
Posts: 7,147
Jan 9, 2012 11:55am
Eh, it happens. None of the first four are something you wouldn't see on any given night when a player gets frustrated.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 9, 2012 12:01pm
Yep, and if you see that frustration, it needs to be an intentional, definitely!GOONx19;1044916 wrote:Eh, it happens. None of the first four are something you wouldn't see on any given night when a player gets frustrated.
THE4RINGZ
Posts: 16,816
Jan 9, 2012 12:02pm
A kid who plays like that all season will eventually find someone bigger, stronger and equally less mentally balanced and it will be on like Donkey Kong.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Jan 9, 2012 12:12pm
Foul #2 I don't think was a flagarant foul at all. #6 was iffy. The pattern should have been enough to not tolerate anything further though.
THE4RINGZ
Posts: 16,816
Jan 9, 2012 12:21pm
I guess if you really want to break these down let's look at #2. The player in red who gains possession of the ball steps on the end line before being fouled. The base line offical isn't watching his feet. The whistle should have been blown when he hits the line.
And since someone from the team in scarlet has taken the time to post this video let's look at fould #4. #34 in scarlet should have been called for a block prior to his teammate gaining possesion of the ball. He tries to box him out with his rear end and has his arms extended, but his feet are still moving laterally.Then after the whistle blows on this play, #24 in scarlet slaps the ball right in an opponents face. That could be construed as taunting and a technical foul could be called there.
But let's not point fingers, we need them to dry our tears.
And since someone from the team in scarlet has taken the time to post this video let's look at fould #4. #34 in scarlet should have been called for a block prior to his teammate gaining possesion of the ball. He tries to box him out with his rear end and has his arms extended, but his feet are still moving laterally.Then after the whistle blows on this play, #24 in scarlet slaps the ball right in an opponents face. That could be construed as taunting and a technical foul could be called there.
But let's not point fingers, we need them to dry our tears.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 9, 2012 1:16pm
I see only two FLAGRANT fouls here, but all but maybe ONE of the others are at least intentional.Con_Alma;1044939 wrote:Foul #2 I don't think was a flagarant foul at all. #6 was iffy. The pattern should have been enough to not tolerate anything further though.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 9, 2012 1:17pm
I like this post.THE4RINGZ;1044954 wrote:I guess if you really want to break these down let's look at #2. The player in red who gains possession of the ball steps on the end line before being fouled. The base line offical isn't watching his feet. The whistle should have been blown when he hits the line.
And since someone from the team in scarlet has taken the time to post this video let's look at fould #4. #34 in scarlet should have been called for a block prior to his teammate gaining possesion of the ball. He tries to box him out with his rear end and has his arms extended, but his feet are still moving laterally.Then after the whistle blows on this play, #24 in scarlet slaps the ball right in an opponents face. That could be construed as taunting and a technical foul could be called there.
But let's not point fingers, we need them to dry our tears.
thePITman
Posts: 3,867
Jan 10, 2012 1:23pm
A few, but not all, fouls were flagrant. Most, but not all, were intentional. But I think that many of them look worse because this kid just looks very uncoordinated. The push in the back running after the ball should have been intentional. None would have resulted in an ejection by themselves; but after the whole game, it would have cumulated, and I think the kid should have been ejected. I still can't believe the coach didn't bench either of them. Talk about no discipline!
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 10, 2012 1:37pm
I disagree. The close line is definitely ejection worthy.thePITman;1047000 wrote:A few, but not all, fouls were flagrant. Most, but not all, were intentional. But I think that many of them look worse because this kid just looks very uncoordinated. The push in the back running after the ball should have been intentional. None would have resulted in an ejection by themselves; but after the whole game, it would have cumulated, and I think the kid should have been ejected. I still can't believe the coach didn't bench either of them. Talk about no discipline!
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Jan 10, 2012 1:50pm
I saw this a few days ago. From my personal view, #4 was a frustration push and definitely should have been called intentional. #5 was pure cheapness and should have led to an ejection. Some of the others, though, looked like the person who posted it was just trying to whine...taking the legit cheap shot and using it to blow his other fouls out of proportion. #34 looked like a big, unskilled goof with no skill or ability to get in defensive position, where he was fouling due to either ineptitude or laziness. They must be a horrible team to have a kid like that get enough playing time to commit multiple fouls.
G
Gblock
Jan 10, 2012 1:54pm
thugs
thePITman
Posts: 3,867
Jan 10, 2012 4:18pm
I agree to a point. If it was a completely isolated incident, I could possibly mark it down as a hard foul, most definitely an "intentional" or flagrant (technical) foul. But combine it with any of the others, and I agree that it should have definitely resulted in an ejection (but it also depends on the angles the refs had, and how obvious to them that it may have been intentional instead of "going for the ball, but grabbing the arm aggressively".ernest_t_bass;1047019 wrote:I disagree. The close line is definitely ejection worthy.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 10, 2012 5:05pm
Flagrant fouls result in ejection in high school, just for clarification, in case anyone doesn't know.
Classyposter58
Posts: 6,321
Jan 10, 2012 6:25pm
:laugh:I'm sorry but that was hilarious. That dude just basically thought to himself, eff keepin my hands up when I can just lay down a body slam
GOONx19
Posts: 7,147
Jan 10, 2012 7:12pm
How long has this been the case? It wasn't like that when I was in school, or at least the refs didn't know it.ernest_t_bass;1047216 wrote:Flagrant fouls result in ejection in high school, just for clarification, in case anyone doesn't know.
ernest_t_bass
Posts: 24,984
Jan 10, 2012 8:31pm
GOONx19;1047302 wrote:How long has this been the case? It wasn't like that when I was in school, or at least the refs didn't know it.
For as long as I can remember. Only one I've ever seen called was in 98/99.
GOONx19
Posts: 7,147
Jan 11, 2012 9:06am
Hmm. I feel like I've been in games where flagrants were called, but I guess maybe I haven't. I never knew it was an automatic ejection.