Collegiate female soccer player is viscious...suspended indefinitely

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

How do you know what was in the ref's brain at the time? Yeah, it's pretty easy to transfer your response had you been officiating. But ....... you weren't. At least your words don't indicate you were there (in the ref's brain)...S

Pretty simple. The refs did not make the call. Obviously they did not find the play as heinous as you.

[Tobra]

Obviously they did not see the plays in question is perhaps more accurate there fint.

What makes you say no one was injured in the least? Maybe not bad enough to warrant a trip to the ER. Every one of the red card offenses I saw would definitely hurt, at least a little.

If you did something similar to the hair pull to the ground in a football game, you would at least get a 15 yard penalty, and probably an early trip to the showers, and they hit each other on purpose in that game.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Obviously they did not see the plays in question is perhaps more accurate there fint...

Why is that obvious? The refs were there and likely saw exactly what I did. One team dishing out a lot of cheap shots..and the receipient giving back the same.

Originally Posted by Tobra

...What makes you say no one was injured in the least? Maybe not bad enough to warrant a trip to the ER. Every one of the red card offenses I saw would definitely hurt, at least a little...

because no one was. Of course it hurt. That is the idea. I am sure the cheap shots Lambert received hurt as well. Stop acting like these are little princesses. These are tough women that choose to play a rough game and mix it up...

Originally Posted by Tobra

...If you did something similar to the hair pull to the ground in a football game, you would at least get a 15 yard penalty, and probably an early trip to the showers, and they hit each other on purpose in that game.

Not when I played football. It would have only been a personal foul and no big deal for someone to pull your hair...but of course...LOL...You would never see that in a football game. Think about it. Try to throw someone of equal size and strength that is standing still (running at full speed would be quite different) to the ground by pulling their hair...using pretty much just the strength in your forearm. I just does not happen...It was just acting...and the refs likely knew it.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Pretty simple. The refs did not make the call. Obviously they did not find the play as heinous as you.

Your statement is true. You might also have a lower threshold for game official competency than most and are yourself lenient in interpreting and calling game infractions. However, according to feedback from the news articles, that's not the prevailing feeling of most, including athletic directors, soccer refs, soccer players, soccer coaches and soccer fans.

Do you follow sports at all? Even at the pro level w/full-time, paid officials, there's controversy. I'd be interested to see if the conference didn't reprimand the coaching staff and ref. that called this game.

Some comments from NM news:
New Mexico Daily Lobo :: Women's soccer player suspended indefinitely

S

[widebody911]

Fint: if she did that to your daughter/sister/wife on the street, would you be OK with it?

[KaptKaos]

Anyone taking bets that this chick winds up in Playboy?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

Your statement is true. You might also have a lower threshold for game official competency than most and are yourself lenient in interpreting and calling game infractions. However, according to feedback from the news articles, that's not the prevailing feeling of most, including athletic directors, soccer refs, soccer players, soccer coaches and soccer fans...

All are viewing the video clip (which show the incidents out of context) as you are.

Originally Posted by 911pcars

...Do you follow sports at all? Even at the pro level w/full-time, paid officials, there's controversy. I'd be interested to see if the conference didn't reprimand the coaching staff and ref. that called this game...

Not that is really any of your business...or germane to the argument...but yes, I have played sports at a fairly high level and have officiated (at not at quite so high a level). I have seen much rougher in almost every sport that I played...both organized and as a pickup game or practice. I have also watched a great deal of the women's sports in this conference...and the level of contact...as well as the Academy Award level of acting is pretty consistent with what I have seen. I could have easily made a clip to disparage the other team that would look pretty violent as well. The key is "look violent"...since no one was hurt in the least.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by widebody911

Fint: if she did that to your daughter/sister/wife on the street, would you be OK with it?

It was not on the street, it was in an organized, refereed, athletic event. As far as my daughter is concerned, she received far worse than that when she played in High School...and she dished out as good as she got. In college sports she broke her wrist and nose..and had her teeth cut through her lip and cheek twice requiring stitches...and took a blow to her head that required stitches to her forehead....plus lots of bruises and smaller cuts and abrasions. It is like none of you have been to watch women's sports this decade. These girls are just as tough as the guys...and you guys are just whiners looking for a cause.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

BS.

There's a difference between incidental contact causing injuries, or an elbow nudge saying "hey, stop crowding me," and punching/throwing/kicking people.

If you can't see that then I suggest you update your eyeglass prescription.

[scottmandue]

I sprained my thumb REALLY bad playing tiddley winks at the college level... had to sit out the rest of the season.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

I sprained my thumb REALLY bad playing tiddley winks at the college level... had to sit out the rest of the season.

Was Lambert involved?

[Seahawk]

Finally, someone with a clue.

A girl pulls a ponytail, hard (AA performance from the pulled) and she's banned for life...but a major league pitcher throws a rock at the head of a batter from 60'6" feet, with malice and he's, "protecting the team".

College football player tried to gouge eyes out and he gets a half off?

Context is king...I've seen and done some things that make her little 15 minutes look positively banal.

Originally Posted by fintstone

All are viewing the video clip (which show the incidents out of context) as you are.
...but yes, I have played sports at a fairly high level and have officiated (at not at quite so high a level). I have seen much rougher in almost every sport that I played...both organized and as a pickup game or practice. I have also watched a great deal of the women's sports in this conference...and the level of contact...as well as the Academy Award level of acting is pretty consistent with what I have seen. I could have easily made a clip to disparage the other team that would look pretty violent as well. The key is "look violent"...since no one was hurt in the least.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

Finally, someone with a clue.

A girl pulls a ponytail, hard (AA performance from the pulled) and she's banned for life...but a major league pitcher throws a rock at the head of a batter from 60'6" feet, with malice and he's, "protecting the team".

College football player tried to gouge eyes out and he gets a half off?

Context is king...I've seen and done some things that make her little 15 minutes look positively banal.

There are no "contextual" fouls in sports. A foul is a foul. Please provide some rule book language about context. If I see a first foul, I wouldn't wait for the retaliatory second one to call it. Oftentimes, the second foul comes much later at a more opportune moment in play.

In that some fouls are overlooked or minimized tells more about the official or the sports org. than the rulebook. Don't look to pro sports for even-handed displays of justice.

Amateur sports is something else.

When big money is involved, the rules become more "flexible".

Sherwood

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

There are no "contextual" fouls in sports. A foul is a foul. Please provide some rule book language about context. If I see a first foul, I wouldn't wait for the retaliatory second one to call it. Oftentimes, the second foul comes much later at a more opportune moment in play.

In that some fouls are overlooked or minimized tells more about the official or the sports org. than the rulebook. Don't look to pro sports for even-handed displays of justice.

Amateur sports is something else.

When big money is involved, the rules become more "flexible".

Sherwood

Get a grip. It is freakin women's soccer. Big money is not involved. Hardly anyone goes to watch the games and there are no lucrative Professional leagues or commercial contracts.

As far as context, we are talking about the rough play in context with what is typical at that level and what was in that game. Sheesh. As far as the "first foul"...it was obviously not called...neither was the second. You do not let the other player intimidate you and continue to push you out of position...costing you the game. If the refs do not stop it...you play just as rough. Refs tend not to call roughness in championship games like this unless they affect the outcome/score...especially if no one seems to be hurt. Watch a female college basketball game and you will see players flying to the floor over and over...when they obviously were not fouled very hard...just for sympathy/to draw the foul. A good official is smart enough to overlook the acting. You should be too.

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Get a grip. It is freakin women's soccer. Big money is not involved. Hardly anyone goes to watch the games and there are no lucrative Professional leagues or commercial contracts.

As far as context, we are talking about the rough play in context with what is typical at that level and what was in that game. Sheesh. As far as the "first foul"...it was obviously not called...neither was the second. You do not let the other player intimidate you and continue to push you out of position...costing you the game. If the refs do not stop it...you play just as rough. Refs tend not to call roughness in championship games like this unless they affect the outcome/score...especially if no one seems to be hurt. Watch a female college basketball game and you will see players flying to the floor over and over...when they obviously were not fouled very hard...just for sympathy/to draw the foul. A good official is smart enough to overlook the acting. You should be too.

An official should concentrate on the person creating the foul, not the person on the receiving end and how they react to that foul. if you look at how "hard" the person was illegally hit or contacted as a basis for blowing your whistle instead of the action of the perpetrator, maybe you need a refresher course on officiating.

The gray area is the style of play that's more or less accepted by both parties and the officials where a degree of body contact, pushing and holding may be acceptable (soccer, bball, football, etc.). IMHO, Lambert exceeded that threshold in most of the examples shown - context or not. A person reacting to a foul may confirm a foul was initiated, but that's not a necessary factor to call a foul.

Exaggerated example: While Shaquille O'Neal (7-1 and 325 lbs.) attempts a shot, you grab his arm in an attempt to defend. However, your actions make absolutely no difference in his shot motion. He misses, but not because of you. Foul or no foul?

Same scenario except the offensive player is "only" 6 foot and 175 lb. You grab his arm while in the act of shooting and he misses. Foul or no foul?

Both calls should be the same - Fouled in the act of shooting. Two free throws. Two points for Shaq; two for me.

With most legitimate sports, the level of "hurt" should never be the determining factor in calling a foul. However, there may be specific sports that are exceptions. Got an example in mind, e.g. roller derby, Death Race 2000?

Sherwood

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

An official should concentrate on the person creating the foul, not the person on the receiving end and how they react to that foul. if you look at how "hard" the person was illegally hit or contacted as a basis for blowing your whistle instead of the action of the perpetrator, maybe you need a refresher course on officiating.

The gray area is the style of play that's more or less accepted by both parties and the officials where a degree of body contact, pushing and holding may be acceptable (soccer, bball, football, etc.). IMHO, Lambert exceeded that threshold in most of the examples shown - context or not. A person reacting to a foul may confirm a foul was initiated, but that's not a necessary factor to call a foul.

Exaggerated example: While Shaquille O'Neal (7-1 and 325 lbs.) attempts a shot, you grab his arm in an attempt to defend. However, your actions make absolutely no difference in his shot motion. He misses, but not because of you. Foul or no foul?

Same scenario except the offensive player is "only" 6 foot and 175 lb. You grab his arm while in the act of shooting and he misses. Foul or no foul?

Both calls should be the same - Fouled in the act of shooting. Two free throws. Two points for Shaq; two for me.

With most legitimate sports, the level of "hurt" should never be the determining factor in calling a foul. However, there may be specific sports that are exceptions. Got an example in mind, e.g. roller derby, Death Race 2000?

Sherwood

No one is arguing what a foul is or whether these were fouls. Likely, if the BYU fouls to Lambert had been called..she would have never retaliated. Early in the game, the refs set the tone at just how much they will allow. Why must you alway make the argument into something no one else is discussing in an attempt to help your weak argument? The argument at hand regards the rough play and the reaction to this video clip. Apparently, some feel that the player deserves to have her career ended...or spend jail time (even though no foul was called and no one was injured)...others think she should pose for Playboy. My point is that rough play is part of the game at this level (like it or not)...and is somewhat condoned by coaches and referees...since the former do not complain and the latter did not call fouls for the shoves and elbows. If you are a player and don't fight through the holds and cheap shots like Lambert did...you agree to lose. The women are not little princesses. These are tough athletes. If it were a collegiate championship mens' basketball, hockey, or football game...some of the same folks condemning this player for excessive roughness would criticize a male player as a wuss for getting manhandled if they did not push back.

[Seahawk]

I lettered in FB, Basketball and BB in High School...played BB in college.

Context is everything. One example that did not involve me:

I played Free Safety so I had a prime seat to observe the chaos. My sophomore year we had a really tremendous middle linebacker; an aggressive, fast, hitting machine that was the heart of our defense, roaming sideline to sideline.

Our fourth game of the year we were playing another really good team. On the second play, one of their players clearly hit Rob after the play was over, then added a sucker punch. Rob reacted just as the opposing coach knew he would: Rob punched back. I saw it all unfold.

Flag flew. Rob and the other player were kicked out of the game. It turns out the other player was a second team guy sent in the game to rile Rob to the point he would retaliate and get thrown from the game.

I was also asked as a pitched to plunk a batter..."hit him the back". That was HS.

Originally Posted by 911pcars

There are no "contextual" fouls in sports. A foul is a foul. Please provide some rule book language about context. If I see a first foul, I wouldn't wait for the retaliatory second one to call it. Oftentimes, the second foul comes much later at a more opportune moment in play.

In that some fouls are overlooked or minimized tells more about the official or the sports org. than the rulebook. Don't look to pro sports for even-handed displays of justice.

Amateur sports is something else.

When big money is involved, the rules become more "flexible".

Sherwood

[hardflex]

Sounds like some of you would defend the hits by Kermit Washington and Darryl Stingley as necessary and part of the game. There's a difference between a wayward elbow and an outright punch. And I wonder why you ASSUME she was provoked.


As far as the Ref's go, you can see Lambert wait until no one is looking to pull her cheap hair pulling shot. Attention was drawn down the field and Lambert didn't think she'd be seen. She didn't think about the camera which carried a different sort of penalty. Her coach could review the game film to see if she was provoked by the BYU team. He did, and he suspended her, that tells you all you need to know.

She made a bad choice and should suffer the consequences. Personal Responsibility, Right ?

[Seahawk]

She deserves to be punished, but proportionately. I neither support nor defend her actions, I'm just not willing to vilify her to the point of absurdity.

Originally Posted by hardflex

Sounds like some of you would defend the hits by Kermit Washington and Darryl Stingley as necessary and part of the game. There's a difference between a wayward elbow and an outright punch. And I wonder why you ASSUME she was provoked.


As far as the Ref's go, you can see Lambert wait until no one is looking to pull her cheap hair pulling shot. Attention was drawn down the field and Lambert didn't think she'd be seen. She didn't think about the camera which carried a different sort of penalty. Her coach could review the game film to see if she was provoked by the BYU team. He did, and he suspended her, that tells you all you need to know.

She made a bad choice and should suffer the consequences. Personal Responsibility, Right ?

[911pcars]

Originally Posted by fintstone

No one is arguing what a foul is or whether these were fouls. Likely, if the BYU fouls to Lambert had been called..she would have never retaliated. Early in the game, the refs set the tone at just how much they will allow. Why must you alway make the argument into something no one else is discussing in an attempt to help your weak argument? The argument at hand regards the rough play and the reaction to this video clip. Apparently, some feel that the player deserves to have her career ended...or spend jail time (even though no foul was called and no one was injured)...others think she should pose for Playboy. My point is that rough play is part of the game at this level (like it or not)...and is somewhat condoned by coaches and referees...since the former do not complain and the latter did not call fouls for the shoves and elbows. If you are a player and don't fight through the holds and cheap shots like Lambert did...you agree to lose. The women are not little princesses. These are tough athletes. If it were a collegiate championship mens' basketball, hockey, or football game...some of the same folks condemning this player for excessive roughness would criticize a male player as a wuss for getting manhandled if they did not push back.

The key word in your response is, "Likely"
"Likely, if the BYU fouls to Lambert had been called..she would have never retaliated."

That's pure conjecture on your part. Being in control of one's emotions is part of competitive sports, and Lambert wasn't. That was clear, wasn't it? Ok. We'll assume Lambert was fouled (tugged short). Now you contend she's free to retaliate w/o penalty, or it's justified to yank the player down by her hair? Please. Try harder.

"....some of the same folks condemning this player for excessive roughness would criticize a male player as a wuss for getting manhandled if they did not push back."

Again. That's a stretch.

Thanks for your response.
S