Quote:
Originally posted by gordon30307
Quote:
Originally posted by mick
Quote:
Originally posted by gordon30307
That advice rings in my head often, Dudly.
Right or wrong, I look for a reason to call something, rather than simply disregard the notion.
mick
|
I understand where you are coming from but if neither is at an advantage what bearing does "calling something because someone is on the floor" have other than appeasing the coaches?
|
You obviously do not understand.
An action yielding a no-call can be an easy out, if explained away by "incidental contact".
I look really hard before I no-call with one or two players on the floor. I won't take the easy way out, I get paid to make the hard calls, not for merely getting dressed.
mick
|
Hi Mick, I disagree that a no call after a collision is an "easy out". Normally with one or two players on the floor with no call your going to hear from one or both coache's complaining. Somewhere in the rule or case book there a statement that talks about collisions sometimes violent (obviously no advantage) that are considered to be "incidental contact" Now the type of play I'm referring to is a long pass where A1 and B1 get there at the same time with a violent collision. You have something like this and you have one or both coaches begging for a call. [/B][/QUOTE]
gordon30307,
If one simply looks at the point of contact, one takes the easy way out in making a decision.
See the entire play. Where was A1 before the contact? Where was B1? Were they after the ball? After the opponent? Did both players go straight up? Did they come from equal angles on intersecting lines? was a player cut-off, checked before the ball was touched? Did one player attempt to go through the opponent toward the ball?
Hurry! Hurry! Compute! Determine! Adjudge! You've got 0.80 seconds!
Whew! That was an easy no-call!
mick