[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by tomegun

A few things:

I would like to apologize for not stating things correctly; I was working off memory because I had not seen the video in a while when I started this thread on Sunday.

1. It wasn't a forearm but was certainly a block. If others don't think so that is another opinion. The reason this play was selected was because the instructional chair, and my friend, thought there should have been 4 fouls called.
2. My opinion is the video is good enough to make some determination.
3. The first contact is a foul. I too had a question about the contact the defender could have made. But, the offensive player extended her arm and the player went down, delay and all. We can either question a play like this or explain it to the coach like this official did. She either got hit or deserves an oscar. Either way, I'm putting air in the whistle one way or the other - depending on what the defender did. Someone also comment (I think) about the T being straight-lined. Not a good enough reason to not have something.
4. This play escalates and that is why the contact was pointed out. Even though the pass was successful there was contact (the 3rd foul). Something should have been called on all three occasions before the fourth foul and these officials were in position to do so.


I know the thing about "well in my area..." so I will say this: these would be fouls in Southern Nevada...and the DC/Maryland area...and Mississippi.

I'm about to post the end of this game in another thread.

That was me. I agree, there should have been a call here. I was just thinking out loud in my post as I played the video back and forth and noticed more and more detail.