Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt S.
And herein lies a simple difference of perspective into what our role as an official is.
I had an NCAA-W exhibition game last night; small point guard gets trapped near sideline, starts pivoting and gets popped in face by a defenders finger. I call a foul, the point guard decided to continue through the whistle--no contact, no words, just frustrated. We calmed everyone down, I reported the foul, and we continued to play.
My point is, some officials seem to want to look to penalize just for the sake of penalizing while other officials are looking to keep players IN the game...I happen to try to fall into the latter category.
The foul in this video, IMO, is not close to flagrant. The contact was not excessive, nor was it "violent or savage in nature." The players were moving very quickly, and both ball handler and defender were airborne when contact occurred. That's why I'm going with an F1 on the initial play--and obviously having a heightened awareness throughout the rest of the game.
|
I don't think it's fair to say they "look to penalize just for the sake of penalizing." To me, that statement indicates you really don't understand their perspective.
That's the equivalent of the claim that you're too scared to make the right call, which also would display a similar misundertanding.
As for the foul in the video, I'm probably going to measure that in my mind, if I'm on the court, to see if I want to upgrade to flagrant (NFHS). It's probably going to be decided by what I've seen from that player during the game. It may be a good opportunity to get rid of a problem. It's right on the edge, IMO.
I don't see an airborne defender, I see a running defender who, at best, intentionally runs through an airborne and off balance shooter putting his safety at risk.
I have to ask, though, based on your description in red, why would you even call this an F1?