Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
To assume the player's position in relation to the fixed point means he moved assumes the camera didn't move. Even a change in the angle of the shot would move the fixed point in relation to the player. This video is inconclusive, IMO.
|
Given the relative distances involved, the camera would have moved several feet between frames in order to give a impression of movement of a small amount....the camera man would need to be at a full sprint in the bleachers running towards the backcourt while holding a camera over his shoulder to move that much in 1/30 of a second. Additionally, other elements between the frames can be used to establish how stationary the camera was.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.
.
|
Agree. I've always agreed there was a flop.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
I still fall back on my earlier stance. If we have to break this down frame-by-frame, even if we all agreed on the correct call, the other call is completely understandable in real time on the run.
|
The other call being a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because the defender flopped out of what would have been a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because it was so close and hard to tell...that i can't agree on. And that is my main issue..some of the "no-calls" seem to be based on the closeness of the play....and that is not acceptable. I would simply have no issue with either call as long as a call was made on this one.