Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mu4scott
I don’t care for the term “acceptable” in this situation. Too much grey area in that. If there is contact (which I obviously think there was) then there needs to be a whistle one way or the other.
We are not going to agree on this and that’s fine, but answer me this.
With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game?
|
No. Look up the rule on incidental contact, particularly the "may be severe" portion. For what it's worth, I used "acceptable" because of the poor angle and quality of the video; and because I tend to defer to the judgment of the officials on the court without concrete evidence to the contrary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mu4scott
What if that player had been seriously injured and flipped even further and landed on his head, instead of his elbow?
|
You gonna call a charge on him just because he gets injured?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mu4scott
With an airborne shooter and there is contact I have a whistle. Better to err on the side of caution in my opinion.
|
I couldn't disagree with this more. Let's assume for a second that the defender was there in time (which I think he was), and that the defender did not fall backward in anticipation of contact. Let's assume he was not affected at all by contact that the airborne shooter is clearly responsible for.
You claim you have to have a whistle on any contact with an airborne shooter involved. Who you calling the foul on? Based on what rule?