[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Yep, no evidence. If you don't have a good enough angle to determine if it was a shove verses a punch, then you don't have a good enough angle to claim that there was contact made by Blue. At 6 seconds into the clip is when B24 swipes down at the ball. If you pause it there, you cannot see the ball, W24's hands, or B24's left hand that is swiping down. Maybe she got all ball??? We can't tell, L can't see it, C doesn't have the best angle either.

Actually I said it was unclear and I was not alone in saying that. Again, if you want to call a flagrant foul, good for you. I honestly do not care or would not object to your judgment.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

However, the shot to the head is clear. We all see plenty of 'tie ups' and arms flying around, hands slapping together, etc., but you don't see this type of play often. It's pretty clear that this was targetted contact to the head. So to say 'I would have a flagrant foul every week', inferring that you see this type of play every week is disingenuous.

OK it is clear.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

The crew did get together and kept the player in the game. We don't know the experience level of crew however. We do know that C gave a technical (made the T sign) to W24, which is an incorrect mechanic for that play. A sign of inexperience? Maybe, maybe not.

But they obviously did not agree with you right? They obviously did not call a flagrant right? And since it was so clear to you on a tape looking at a strightlined view, they obviously had likely a better angle than you did and came to some conclusion other than what you and a few with the benefit of replay and watching over and over the officials seemed to not have.

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

Do what you need to do Jeff. You've been around a long time and are well respected in your state. I just want to make sure that the younger officials on this board realize that the penalty for contact to the head, as made in this OP, should not be dependent on what may have happened seconds prior to it.

I will say it this way, you are flat out wrong. You are wrong because if a player was trying to get their arm free and inadvertently hit someone in the face, head or chest is different than throwing a punch out of anger. If it was not the case than the NCAA would not have officials look at the monitor for plays like this in the first place. And unlike the NCAA these guys did not get replay or other angles to help them make the call. And younger officials need to also realize that if they make the wrong ruling in someone's eyes, they might be subjected to not working certain games or be perceived as not having good judgment. We can debate this tape all day like we did the last one on flagrant fouls and even in that one there were opinions all over the place on what was or what was not flagrant. It does matter everything that takes place because it might tell the story as to if this was a punch or just a reaction to being held. I have been around long enough in my local area to hear about an official that overreacted to a situation only to later be taken off games or banned from a conference because they did not use "good judgment." Just because I think what happen first matters to the reaction on some level is not unusual in officiating and why the officials talked in this situation. If it was clear, they would have not needed to talk.

Peace