Fun With Contact …

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I didn't see it initially, but the offensive player's arm/elbow was under the defenders chin then upside her head. Hard to ignore that one....it was escalating it to the next level.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I didn't see it initially, but the offensive player's arm/elbow was under the defenders chin then upside her head. Hard to ignore that one ...

That was the player control foul I wanted called, and I would prefer to not go down the "contact above the shoulders" rabbit hole.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I see nothing that really looks like a PC foul or can tell how much displacement there was ..

Watch White #1's head snap back after being elbowed, there's your displacement.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Watch White #1's head snap back after being elbowed, there's your displacement.

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.

I see no such contact or even snap back as you stated. I see nothing because the angle shows nothing clear. If we had the angle of the court that was first shown maybe then you are right but this angle was not an angle I would make such a call. So we are guessing at this point. I see no clear contact to the face or head in any way either based on this angle, so that was not what I was referencing.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I see no such contact ... I see no clear contact to the face or head in any way

Check out 11, 32, and 39 second mark. Ball handler's left arm/elbow, as it moves upward, contacts defender's left neck, cheek, and face (in that order). Ball handler's pony tail partly obscures the contact, but one can still see the contact in small unobscured space between the arm/elbow/neck/cheek/face on the left and the pony tail on the right. Defender's head "tilts" (I exaggerated by using the word "snap") up and back as a result of said upper movement contact to her neck, cheek, and face.

Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Check out 11, 32, and 39 second mark. Ball handler's left arm/elbow, as it moves upward, contacts defender's left neck, cheek, and face (in that order). Ball handler's pony tail partly obscures the contact, but one can still see the contact in small unobscured space between the arm/elbow/neck/cheek/face on the left and the pony tail on the right. Defender's head "tilts" (I exaggerated by using the word "snap") up and back as a result of said upper movement contact to her neck, cheek, and face.

I do not know why you keep thinking that I have not watched this video several times. I watch a lot more video than most people and I see nothing that stands out that states that there was such contact that would warrant a foul. Again, it is about the angle. I would not make that call from the endline if I was there, so why would I say this is what she saw or why she made the call? Again, all contact is not a foul. This contact that you say is there does not clearly move the player from the angle we have and unless you just want to look like a girl's official, call that. Because nothing I saw is clear as to what if any contact took place. Also, was there contact before by the defender? I cannot tell, which would influence what I call.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Anytime a moving elbow contacts a player in the head, a foul (of some type) should to be charged.

Then you are going to call a lot of BS that did nothing to either player.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... a moving elbow contacts a player in the head ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I see no such contact ... see no clear contact to the face or head in any way ... to what if any contact took place ... I see nothing ...

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... there was such contact that would warrant a foul ... all contact is not a foul. This contact that you say is there does not clearly move the player ...

It's difficult to professionally discuss and debate with JRutledge when he keeps moving the goalposts.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

While the "specifics" (intentional or flagrant fouls) of this very old Point of Emphasis may (I'm not sure, there seems to be two schools of thought)) have faded over time, I don't believe that the purpose and intent of this Point of Emphasis has changed: to prevent concussions by charging fouls (of some type) for any above the shoulder contact by a moving elbow.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It's difficult to professionally discuss and debate with JRutledge when he keeps moving the goalposts.

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.

I did not move a damn thing. I said I did not see anything from this angle that warranted a clear foul. And I was not the first to state that position. Now, this was your video, not mine. You posted this and wanted to debate the situation in which you wanted to support your position. I stated the angle was bad and cannot confirm or deny if the official on the play is wrong. Now if you would stop trying to debate yourself on every damn thread, you might realize when someone is taking a position. But as usually you go on and on responding to yourself you think that everyone is changing something when I have been consistent throughout. If I was a clinician at a camp and saw this play, I would ask the official, "What did you see?" Then let them explain why they made the call or not. Because I think it is very possible that the call was not because of contact to the neck area at all, there might have been contact with the torso which caused displacement. Very hard to tell from this angle. But how can we tell that if we do not have a good angle or if the official did not tell us why they made this call?

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I didn't see it initially, but the offensive player's arm/elbow was under the defenders chin then upside her head. Hard to ignore that one....it was escalating it to the next level.

And that is why the contact that the defender caused from behind and while sticking her arm into the mix warranted a whistle first. I’ve never been comfortable calling the second foul which is in response to contact I just allowed.
It feels unjust.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And that is why the contact that the defender caused from behind and while sticking her arm into the mix warranted a whistle first. I’ve never been comfortable calling the second foul which is in response to contact I just allowed. It feels unjust.

I see no illegal body contact by the defender, she stops on a dime just short of contact and doesn't move forward, all the incidental body contact is initiated by the pivoting (once she finally decides on a pivot foot) ball handler. But this is a subjective judgment call that Nevadaref has a right to question.

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.