I see nothing that really looks like a PC foul or can tell how much displacement there was. The angle they picked was not conducive for supporting this foul.
Peace |
1. Clear travel upon catching the ball.
2. Likely illegal contact by the defender, but I can understand letting it go. 3. However, if one is going to pass on the contact by the defender, it is harsh to not allow the offensive player to push back. Coming up with a PC here is not ideal. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk |
Blind Travel ...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not only was she jammed up against the coach, but she was also straight-lined by ball handler in such a way that the official doesn't get a good look at the initial possession of the ball, as Raymond commented. Quote:
|
Simple Player Control Foul ...
Quote:
Quote:
OK, "snap" is hyperbole, more of a "move" back. Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. Of course, a player moving toward and contacting a stationary elbow is another story for another time. |
At the 40 second mark of the video, the offensive player's arm is clearly fully extended to push off the defender. If it was just the chicken wing as the coach is suggesting then I could see a no call.
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
It feels unjust. |
Head Tilts Back ...
Quote:
Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. |
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Three Contacts Passed On Don't Necessarily Make A Right ...
Quote:
Nevadaref is correct in that the defender complicates things by adding her right arm into the mix, but I see no illegal arm contact. Again, this is a subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question. Allowing incidental body contact, or allowing arm contact not putting the ball handler at a disadvantage, shouldn't subsequently be used as a rationale by an official to automatically pass (as just) on a player who responds to one, or two, slight incidental contacts with a subsequent contact to the head (it wasn't a knockout punch, but it wasn't slight either). Three contacts passed on don't necessarily make a right. Anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (not going down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here) should to be charged. Also another subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question. |
Moving The Goalposts Again ...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In one post he states that there is "no such contact" replying to the "moving elbow contacts a player in the head" contact reference that I had described in an earlier post. And he followups with that he sees "no clear contact to the face or head in any way". Pretty strong words, "in any way". Also, "I see nothing". That's why I asked him to take another look at the video, pointing out certain things to look for to see the contact that he opined never occurred. In another post he states that there is "no such contact that would warrant a foul", following up with "all contact is not a foul" (that I, in general, agree with), both of his statements implying that there was indeed contact, but that it wasn't a foul (which can professionally discussed and debated). Since JRutledge can't seem to decide if there was "no" contact, or that there was contact but that it wasn't contact that would "warrant a foul" (I can't see an admission of no contact as entertaining a discussion of whether or not a foul was warranted, no contact always equals no foul (technical foul exceptions), no discussion needed; I'll only address his second point (that there was contact, but it didn't warrant a foul). I really don't want to go down the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole, so I'm ignoring all possibilities of intentional or flagrant fouls, but anytime a moving elbow, not just a touch, but an elbow moving fast enough that it can move, even slightly, a opponent's head, contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged. I believe that "only" a player control foul was appropriate here. But certainly a subjective judgment call that JRutledge has a right to question. Was there no contact, or was there contact that didn't warrant a foul? As to the former, the video shows (not clearly, it takes some careful study) there was contact. The later is professionally debatable if one choses to ignore the "contact above the shoulders" Point of Emphasis rabbit hole. The official in the video, showing great hustle, jammed up against the coach, straight-lined on the ball, did the best she could. She missed the travel, but in my opinion, got the foul calls, and no calls, correct. |
This angle I don't see anything the defender does illegal.
I can clearly see the offensive player's arm unnaturally in the defender's head and neck region with contact just before the official blows her whistle. I'll trust her angle and judgment in regards to that call. Very first lesson I ever learned in my very first basketball camp 19 years ago was to call fouls when there is contact to the head. It has always stuck with me. The person who ran that little local high school camp is now the supervisor for about 9 or 10 Men's D1 conferences and his philosophies kind of permeate in this region of the country down to the D3 level. |
Good Judgment ...
Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:59pm. |