[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's difficult to professionally discuss and debate with JRutledge when he keeps moving the goalposts.

In one post he states that there is "no such contact" replying to the "moving elbow contacts a player in the head" contact reference that I had described in an earlier post. And he followups with that he sees "no clear contact to the face or head in any way". Pretty strong words, "in any way". Also, "I see nothing".

That's why I asked him to take another look at the video, pointing out certain things to look for to see the contact that he opined never occurred.

In another post he states that there is "no such contact that would warrant a foul", following up with "all contact is not a foul" (that I, in general, agree with), both of his statements implying that there was indeed contact, but that it wasn't a foul (which can professionally discussed and debated).

Since JRutledge can't seem to decide if there was "no" contact, or that there was contact but that it wasn't contact that would "warrant a foul" (I can't see an admission of no contact as entertaining a discussion of whether or not a foul was warranted, no contact always equals no foul (technical foul exceptions), no discussion needed; I'll only address his second point (that there was contact, but it didn't warrant a foul).

I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here. But certainly a subjective judgment call that JRutledge has a right to question.

Was there no contact, or was there contact that didn't warrant a foul? As to the former, the video shows (not clearly, it takes some careful study) there was contact. The later is professionally debatable if one choses to ignore the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole.

The official in the video, showing great hustle, jammed up against the coach, straight-lined on the ball, did the best she could. She missed the travel, but in my opinion, got the foul calls, and no calls, correct.

I did not move a damn thing. I said I did not see anything from this angle that warranted a clear foul. And I was not the first to state that position. Now, this was your video, not mine. You posted this and wanted to debate the situation in which you wanted to support your position. I stated the angle was bad and cannot confirm or deny if the official on the play is wrong. Now if you would stop trying to debate yourself on every damn thread, you might realize when someone is taking a position. But as usually you go on and on responding to yourself you think that everyone is changing something when I have been consistent throughout. If I was a clinician at a camp and saw this play, I would ask the official, "What did you see?" Then let them explain why they made the call or not. Because I think it is very possible that the call was not because of contact to the neck area at all, there might have been contact with the torso which caused displacement. Very hard to tell from this angle. But how can we tell that if we do not have a good angle or if the official did not tell us why they made this call?

Peace