|
I did what someone earlier suggested: to look at the video using YouTube's website, and not the embedded clip that was posted. I then could watch the video in full screen. Yes, the quality becomes a bit blurry, but it is still "clear enough".
There was no contact to warrant a PC. Anyone that calls a PC in this case is flat out wrong. And yes, that includes the official making the call on the floor. Even if that same action earlier in the game was a PC, it is still wrong to call this a PC here for consistency reasons; it is better to make 1 error than 2.
Furthermore, the only possible contact I see is best shown in the 2nd angle - which is that of A1's foot to B1's knee/leg which is outside of B1's frame.
Just before the feet exit the picture (cameraman wanted to get the ball and it's path), you can see A1's foot moving in a unnatural way. I don't believe that A1 would move his foot in this manner voluntarily, which leads me to a blocking call.
If there was in fact contact in the location that I mentioned, then the correct call is a block. If not, a no call is the correct call. I change my call to a block. But calling a PC is an egregious error.
So yes, inadequate defense by B meaning he didn't do enough to draw a PC foul or a no call. Furthermore, he did do enough to warrant a blocking call.
__________________
Pope Francis
|