[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Here, nobody saw the play in question. If you want something understood, you have no choice but to explain. We had two plays (one with video, one without) where an airborne shooter was knocked to the floor. One you said was not a foul. The other you not only said it was a foul, you said it was absurd not to protect the airborne shooter to the floor. I asked what the difference was. I thought I was asking a legitimate question, rather than prolonging a previous argument.......this time.

One play that we saw on video we have a player that blocked the ball on a shot. The play that I am reading here there was no blocked shot. Unless I missed something, where contact takes place first without any contact with the ball that is totally different. And I love the comment you say as if someone is if a shooter gets knocked to the floor there must be a foul. Unless you have never worked a boy's game, shooters get knocked to the floor all the time. That does not mean it was a foul or that the defender did anything wrong or illegal. There are times when a shooter causes all the contact and fall the floor. Now if you are one of those officials that call everything in the benefit of the shooter no matter what, then that is why we have POEs every year talking about why we should not call fouls on the defense and we must review things like LGP and even Verticality. Basketball players do fall and nothing should be called sometimes. Nowhere does it say every time a shooter falls there must be a foul or that the defender did something illegal. But again you keep asking as if those rules are to only protect the shooter from falling.

Peace