Anonymous
Last year

Did Norton deserve to be ejected?

Seemed a bit over the top to me. Referees will probably justify it by using some definitions but the ejection showed a lack of feel for the game.

First foul was just a normal holding foul. Second foul seemed like a poor attempt to take a charge but not a flop.

Topic #44498 | Report this topic


Anonymous  
Last year

First foul was USF wasn't it?

Reply #723914 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

It was called a USF but I felt it was just a normal holding foul

Reply #723915 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

100% yes. First foul was clear interpretation of the USF rule, and got called for holding while the ball wasn't in play. Easy call. Second one was a tech where the refs had had enough of about 5 Wildcat flops. Was Norton's the worst of them? No but they had had enough. Actually gives hope that they might take it out of the game.

We shouldn't hide behind "feel for the game" or the calls you'd like to see. Rather than the calls that need to be called.

Reply #723917 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Very stiff penalty

Reply #723919 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

'Second one was a tech where the refs had had enough of about 5 Wildcat flops'

How many flops warnings had they received? Just one...

Reply #723921 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

No denying that. Did you see Hire keep his feet later in the game when Patterson ran through his screen? Would of gone to ground in true Redhage fashion every time over the past 5 years. Strange he didn't last night.

And the penalty isn't that steep because he didn't get tossed for the flop. He got tossed cause of his USF (which was correct) and then went to ground after the team had already had a warning and several more flops. It wasn't just see ya later on that one play.

Reply #723923 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Haha you only get one

Reply #723924 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

"100% yes. First foul was clear interpretation of the USF rule, and got called for holding while the ball wasn't in play. Easy call. "

Might've been technically correct, but it happens very regularly in games without being called. Norton was chasing a guy through some screens and held onto him. Guys being held off the ball is pretty regular occurrence and I don't see them being penalised in this manner.

Reply #723926 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

It just felt a little out of proportion for a guy to be kicked out of a game for what were essentially two ticky tack calls.

Reply #723928 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Stop saying the refs were sick of several flops. They got the warning for one, then ejected a guy for another. If the refs were sick of the other flops then those would have also been whistled the same way.

Or maybe they weren't flops.

Reply #723929 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

That's where you gotta take your feelings out of it if you want change. 2 ticky tack calls as you say but if you don't change it up you'll never get those flops out of the game. I was shocked when Hire didn't flop on that play later in the game.

I agree though that it must now be enforced at that level everywhere to see the change! Guys like Goulding and Sobey should be monitored closely.

Reply #723930 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

That's the other reason Norton have been given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he has history of flopping. Maybe he really was just losing balance. Whereas if it were Redhage, Goulding etc you wouldn't be as inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Reply #723933 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

They were obviously sick of the flops! Cause I agree that Norton's wasn't the worst of them! Just the straw that broke the camels back.

Thought the refs did a solid job in a game that was really tough to call.

Reply #723937 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Norton had another sloppy play in which he went to ground shortly before this one too. And I don't agree he doesn't push the boundaries of it. Goulding Sobey Gliddon Wagstaff certainly the main culprits in recent years.

Reply #723938 | Report this post


Luuuc  
Last year

It certainly had the desired effect on the number of players hitting the deck.
I still don't think it's a great idea for refs to have to judge on the spot whether something was a flop or not, because we've seen in the past that it can go horribly wrong, and I'd hate to see someone ejected for tripping over their own foot.
But I don't really have an issue with last night.
I bet the lesson gets learned pretty quickly throughout the league after that.

Overall I think the lowering of tolerance of unsportsmanlike acts is good for the game. (I think that cheap fouls on a shooter after a whistle should be added to the list of things we stamp out. Hacking someone's arm is clearly not a legit basketball play either.)

Reply #723939 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

But if those other flops were flops, why didn't they call them? Why did it take norton falling over for them to blow the whistle? You’re not making any sense.

Reply #723940 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

That's a tough flop technical. Defender chasing, trying to retreat, off balance, contact to the side-shoulder. In this instance let him sit. He doesn’t throw his head back, accentuate any contact. He is just late to the spot. Shit call a block if you have to but that is not a flop. And unfortunately whether people think it’s ticky tac or not the rules state 2 T’s, 2 USF or a combination of both and you are ejected. No room for interpretation or feel for the game. Pretty black and white.

Reply #723941 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Norton was backpedaling as well. When you're doing that it's easier to lose your balance. The flops I don't like are when some guy is defending the post and acts like he's been shot out of a rocket when contact is made.

Reply #723942 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

You're saying I'm not making any sense, but then asking why these refs don't have any "feel" for the game. What I'm saying is they didn't want to call this!!! They actually had some feel for the game but at the point they tech'd Norton they felt enough was enough. The Brandt flop was bad, the play of wagstaff embellishing a call throwing himself back, Norton went to ground as soon as he came in. The 2nd Norton one was where they had had enough. Would you like them to be stricter? And just send everyone out? I actually thought they exercised patience and that feel that people ask for each week.

Reply #723944 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

I'm not fighting that the Norton one was a bad flop. He was the sacrificial lamb to clean up the game. And it actually worked. I didn't see Gliddon flop once and he's in the top 5 in that category. Didn't see Gliddon do his usual stupid play where he parks in front of a big guy running he middle and falls to the ground (Cadee did and that should of been a tech).

Reply #723945 | Report this post


Luuuc  
Last year

But if those other flops were flops, why didn't they call them?

Just guessing here, but I'd expect that a ref would want to be very sure it was a flop before calling it that way, so if they didn't have a great view of what happened they would rather err on the side of ignoring it, which is exactly what they should do.

(This is why I don't really like having flopping as another thing the refs need to be looking at. We already ask a lot of them and are quick to have a sook when they don't get something right. Now let's put something else on their plate that also requires them to judge a player's intent)

Reply #723946 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

'the play of wagstaff embellishing a call throwing himself back,'

Which was a charge anyway. Patterson barreled into wagstaff’s chest so its pretty irrelevant that he sold the contact.

All I am saying is if the refs witnessed multiple flops between the warning and Norton’s call, why wait so long before blowing the whistle again? I don’t think any NBL ref would give a warning for a tech, then let the same behavior go for a few more plays.

Reply #723948 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

'they would rather err on the side of ignoring it, which is exactly what they should do'

Agreed, but I’m still not sure how they were supposedly frustrated by all this flopping that was going on.

Reply #723950 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

I dont think he really deserved it, but I'm also not necessarily against the decision. I just hate how they picked the first half of last nights game to try crack down on flops and make a statement. Its just another example of NBLs inconsistency. Based on last night guys like Goulding and Sobey should have been ejected in most games. If the NBL decides to call out flops regularly though and throw out players i think it'll be good for the league. Now we just need to wait and see if this has set a bit of a precedent or if its just one off shit NBL reffing again.

Reply #723951 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Last year

Another salty Perth fan? This thread is a joke.

Read up on the rules. As stated above, he was ejected appropriately.

As for the USF, I was at the game and I saw Norton clearly holding his opponent's jersey, which held him back.

USF - correct call
Tech - correct call

Therefore, ejection was warranted. To their credit, Norton and the coaches took it on the chin (so unlike Gleeson). That didn't stop me telling Norton not to come back on his way out.

Reply #723977 | Report this post


UseTaHoop  
Last year

The refs didn't need to judge whether or not to eject Norton.

All they should be judging is the individual call. Ideally, they wouldn’t remember which player/s have already been called for usf or T.

Whether or not each call should have been made, that’s the important issue, and each call should be assessed on its merits, in isolation from the other call.

Reply #723982 | Report this post


Isaac  
Last year

Another salty Perth fan? This thread is a joke.
I thought it was actually a pretty reasonable discussion for the most part until you came in with that. OP asked in a fair way, and any counterpoints were made politely enough.

Reply #723986 | Report this post


koberulz  
Last year

100% yes. First foul was clear interpretation of the USF rule, and got called for holding while the ball wasn't in play. Easy call.
That rule only applies in the final two minutes. It was for a jersey grab.

Reply #724011 | Report this post


Andrew  
Last year

I personally don't think the second one was a flop. Definitely a block but not a flop. Bad call in my opinion.

Reply #724096 | Report this post


AD  
Last year

Firstly, with Martin available, if we can't beat Brisbane with Norton out then we have bigger problems. So I'm not salty over the ejection.

I am also heartened by this and other incidents that the refs are prepared to make calls and let the chips fall where they may.
Way back when, I still recall a certain final where one team got into massive foul-trouble early, had no choice but to keep their stars on the court, and for the rest of the game refs refused to call their fouls because it would have fouled them out.
Is ejection a harsh penalty for two "soft" "techs" Perhaps, but its the rule.
I guess the lesson to players is to know the rules, and if you get called for one (beit USF, tech, or flop) behave yourself and stay on your feet for the reminder of the game.

The problem I have with flop calls, is that the refs are so inconsistent. The same play is one game called a charge, the next a block, and another flop.

The additional issue with some "flop" actions, is that its a matter of safety. If you are (genuinely) knocked off balance and unable to recover, if you simply fall pivoting at your feet then your head is going to hit the floor with maximum velocity. (That's how one punch attacks typically kill) So players scoot backwards so they land on their arse. It can be hard to pick between that and a deliberate flop.
My view is still that they should call the foul that's there, or not, and leave the player on the floor as his own disadvantage.

But again, call on Norton was correct within the rules.

Reply #724107 | Report this post




 

Reply to this topic

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Hogwash 88

Rules:You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.



Close ads
PickStar - The best place to book sports stars
Dunk.com.au - Custom basketball uniforms
Casual 3X3 sessions, Saturdays 2-5pm at St Clair Rec Centre
SportsLink Travel - Official Tour Provider for Basketball Australia

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



Invoicing clients? Stay productive with Punch, the insightful time tracker that earns you more.

Special offer: $30/month Pay $100 for lifetime access. Sign up now!

.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 11:25 am, Sat 19 Jan 2019 | Posts: 755,630 | Last 7 days: 1,723