Blocked shot attempt - Foul Called (Video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/C4wRrWpjOjI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peace

The higher the level, the cleaner the block it is, if that makes any sense.

So for this one, clean block.

Incorrect call. No foul plus L too far away. Anyway, should be closed down in which case credibility increases. Also, should have sold it better.

Selling doesn’t make the call any more or less correct.

I agree with the call. White #15 may have earned a "T" as well.

Violation by blue #33 on the second FT -- stop the tape at 0:49 -- her foot is on the lane space mark.

I'm sure the lead would love to have a re-do, as many officials would. W15 waving official off is not good.

I'm surprised from what I've seen that was called a foul. One interesting thing to me is that how that play is officiated differently then on a jump shooter. Jump shooters are given greater protection with the got to let them land clean mentality.

I'd only notice this if W15 was engaged in conversation with an official (myself or a partner). I T'd a kid up this past weekend who asked me for an explanation of a call, and then, as I started to explain, he waved me off.

I'm not touching that from across the paint. Too marginal/too much of a guess.

Although in saying that, I'm certain I've blown plays like that...probably this year. It happens.

I disagree as at times it does. The calling official may have seen something not visible to us/replay. Right or wrong, it is difficult to argue with an official who sells something on a marginal-looking play. The official is telling the world "Hey, I got something for sure." and who are we to argue with that as spectators looking at a grainy video from afar. I was simply saying that if he indeed had something from that position, he should have sold it better.

Non sequitur. Selling it can make it less likely someone argues, but it can't make the actual call more correct. The call is the call. Selling it is, well, selling it so that others accept it. (I know I've sold an incorrect call more than once.)

Sometimes, though, the official is saying, "I kicked the crap out of that one so I'd better hope they are buying what I am selling."

And, sometimes just a matter-of-fact call can be the best sell -- as in, "That was so obvious I don't need to sell it."

Makes sense but the former reason is not justified. Refs should not do that and that action to me is quite dishonest.

Yes, latter also true and if so, why are we discussing the OP? Play did not look too obvious. My point is that the calling official perhaps, from our view, made a bad call. Now, if he really had something that we could not see clearly, then selling it would have been fine. And selling it may have resulted in not having to discuss it as much with the coach. Pretend offensive player got hit in face. We did not see that but ref picked it up. From his poor position, he sells the strike to the face. In real time, call looks bogus. After play, we all realize, oh, she got hit in the face, based on the ref's call. Not saying that is what actually happened, just using an example where an official may be in a bad spot, see something not obvious, and selling it makes it better than not selling it.

I know this official, always called too much, which is one of the reasons he tracked to the women's side, although they are getting to the point where they don't like ticky tack either. if ball up top, you should have a really good reason to call a foul. there wasn't one here. I don't watch much women's ball, didn't realize he'd gotten up to the point where he's doing games like this. won't last long with calls like that.