Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
No. Look up the rule on incidental contact, particularly the "may be severe" portion.
|
Incidental contact is not for when determining fault is difficult (as in this case). If you've got a block/charge with severe contact (not necessarily referring to this particular case), it is not incidental....ever. To call a play incidental just because it's hard to tell is a cop out. We've got to make a decision. If we can't see the play and choose not to make a call instead of guessing, that's one thing, but it's not that we've decided that the contact was incidental.
The kind of severe contact that is incidental is, for example, when two players simultaneously and aggressively converge on a loose ball from opposite directions. Big collision, no foul.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
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.You gonna call a charge on him just because he gets injured?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
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.
|
The frame-by-frame has established that he defender was not there in time. But, for the moment, let's assume he was along with your other criteria. No foul.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
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?
|
When the defender is responsible for the contact (as in this case) and the shooter goes down hard, yes. I'm going to have a call on the play in this video...I might be wrong, but that is not one I feel should be passed on.