Fun With Last Second Shots …
 

Is this a foul at the end of the game? Observe the play and make a judgment as to whether or a not a foul should have been ruled on the play. There is less than five seconds on the game clock and the score is tied 60-60.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...IldHQsiPoP.mp4

Two choices: This should have been ruled a foul. This is not a foul (let's play overtime).

My comment: This should have been ruled a foul. Defender hits shooter on right elbow (shooting arm) as shooter is in the act of shooting. Always protect the shooter.

Impossible to tell from the camera angle. It almost looks like white flops.

If the point is that "if you'd call it with 2 minutes to go you should call it with 0.2 seconds to go" I agree -- but I don't know that I'd call it even then

Shooter's Elbow ...
 

I also believed that the shooter embellished the body contact, but the body contact was subsequent the contact on the shooter's right elbow, which definitely affected the trajectory of the shot.

(Lead was straight-lined.)

Was the Lead in a boat or a dire situation?

The shooter landed cleanly on both feet and then threw himself backwards onto the ground. If the contact was significant enough to knock him down, he would have fell sideways toward the official. We don't need to qualify that he "may" have flopped.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Fun With Homophones ...
 

It did look funny when I typed it. Approved by spellcheck. Fixed it. Thanks.

Flop House ...
 

Agree 100%. Now check out the contact on his shooting elbow.

Did he "flop" enough for technical foul?

Been around basketball for over fifty years as a player, fan, coach, and official. Never observed this called. Never. Ever.

Maybe that's why some of us say, "He may have flopped"? Once we say, "He flopped", we probably (depends on how one defines "flop") have to penalize.

Wink. Nod.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.x...=0&w=234&h=170

At least I didn't hear any of the members of the team in white ask for "and one!"

Not sure where the contact was from. Not sure it was from the side. Might be a flop as stated by someone else.

Peace

Dancing Elbow To Elbow ...
 

(With apologies to 1935 Fred Astaire)

I thought that there was some contact between defender's right elbow and shooter's right elbow. Looked at it again at 25% speed (available to IAABO members). I'm not so sure about the contact any more.

Early in my varsity career, after calling a "touch" foul in a tie game at the buzzer, I was advised by a respected partner, when not 100% sure in such a situation, to err on the side of no foul before the buzzer and to "let the kids decide it in overtime".

IAABO International Play Commentary ...
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...IldHQsiPoP.mp4

IAABO International Play Commentary: Correct Answer: This should have been ruled a foul.

This is one of the more challenging plays we have posted this far this season. The responses are split, with a slight majority leaning toward ruling this contact incidental. The contact on this play results from the defender (Red #2) attempting to block a pass. As Red #2 runs and jumps in his attempt, he finds himself off balance when he returns to the floor. His momentum carries him toward the shooter, and slight contact occurs just before the release of the try.

White #23 does embellish this contact by falling to the floor after the try to attempt to draw a foul ruling from the covering official. Does the action by White #23 violate the rules? (10-4-6f)

So how do we determine if a foul should be charged on this play? The contact committed by Red #2 was slight and could be considered “accidental” after making an effort to block the pass to the shooter. The only question that needs to be answered is: “What impact did the contact have on the shooter?” Regardless of the time and score of the game or the fact the contact was slight, the only criteria needed to charge a foul is if the shooter was hindered on his attempt by the contact.

For 46.3% of you, this contact hindered the attempt, and that would be the rules support needed to warrant a foul on this play. For 53.7% of you, the contact did not inhibit the shooter's ability to try for goal, and therefore the contact should be ruled incidental.

One of the reasons this contact was ruled incidentally may have been the officials' angle to view the contact. Technically this try came from the Trail officials Primary Coverage Area (PCA). However, the Trail administered the throw-in on the endline in the backcourt. Because of the long pass into the frontcourt, The Trail had little chance to get an “open view” at the contact on this play.

The Lead official is already at the endline when the try is taken. On Press coverage, The Lead should obtain an initial starting position between the division line and the frontcourt free throw line extended depending on the location of the players. The Lead should move as necessary to ensure all players are “boxed in” and is also responsible for a long pass into the frontcourt. (IAABO Manual p. 146-147) Had the Lead been positioned properly on the press when the throw-in was administered, he would have been positioned along the sideline to rule on the contact after the long pass into the frontcourt. Lead officials should not be in a hurry to get to the endline. They should remain and read and assist the Trail official when necessary. The Lead official should never be 84 feet away during backcourt throw-ins (Manual p. 172)

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: This is not a foul (let's play overtime) 54%; This should have been ruled a foul 46% (including me).

Flopping ...
 

Who would call it? Who has called it?

10-4-6-F: A player must not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as: Faking being fouled.

No.

Peace