Fun With Contact …

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If you don't see any contact at all, than how can you offer a valid opinion on said contact regarding whether the contact is legal incidental contact that doesn't warrant a foul, or illegal contact that does warrant a foul?

You clearly have never been a person responsible for training or evaluating officials on actual games. If you had, there are many things on video without the multiple angles you can question or wonder what the officials saw. As stated when you do not see something the official sees, you ask them or evaluate the situation based on what the video shows. It is not uncommon to state that officials "beat the tape." That means try your best to call things the video supports. If we are debating if there was contact by the defender or contact by the offensive player, then you are not beating the tape. So yes I can offer an opinion about what I saw or did not see.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

One can't say "if there was" contact and speculate about illegal/incidental, because one didn't see the contact, so how can one form a logical opinion regarding the legality of contact that one never observed.

I can say a lot of things. And in the options YOU POSTED did not indicate anything but PC foul, a blocking foul incidental contact. Nothing said to call this flagrant or intentional, which suggests to me they did not feel that it rose to any such level.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

To those of us (me, Camron Rust, and Raymond) that believe that there was contact, just say "Your'e wrong. There wasn't contact". Period, end of discussion. No need for you to rationalize why the contact wan't a foul, because, according to you, there was no contact.

Camron Rust, and Raymond both saw the contact, if they were to state an opinion that said contact was legal contact the didn't warrant a foul, that would carry at lot of weight, because they actually saw the contact before forming an opinion (they didn't, they, like me, believe that this is illegal contact that does warrant a foul).

Good for you and them, do you want a cookie? Did you get a big prize because you believe there was contact? Nope. I was not making my opinion based on others. If I wanted to then I could mention the couple of people that said they could not tell. Glad you think this is a contest.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You don't see any contact. Just state it, and move on. No contact means no foul. No need to discuss illegal/incidental. No need to discuss an old Point Of Emphasis valid, or invalid. It's a stand alone statement. It's an opinion that shouldn't be ridiculed (despite video evidence), and should be given some consideration. But how can you logically opine on contact that, according to you, you never observed, and doesn't even exist?

I stated what I said some time ago and you do what you do, repeat the same argument over and over again!!!! This is what annoys people, even the people you referenced. You are mostly going on and on about things that really are not relevant to the original discussion and mostly argue with yourself. Not sure why it is so important for me to agree with you on anything.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No such language because the Point of Emphasis just restates verbatim (no additional commentary) the existing rule as written, the same rule that existed in 2012-13 when the infamous Point of Emphasis came out. While the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis does list some examples, it does so in a very general way (one exception: contact with a thrower-in), such as "excessive contact", not listing such contact such as grabbing a jersey on a breakaway layup, bear hug on a breakaway layup, two hand push from behind on a breakaway layup, etc. Rather than listing all the examples of intentional fouls, the rule and current 2020-21 Intentional Foul Point of Emphasis simply states "are not limited to"

We are well aware of what the language states. But there is no special dispensation in the rules as there was not 20 plus years ago. So nothing is stopping your or any "rulebook official" calling more than a common foul of some kind when there is contact with the head and neck area, but you certainly do not have some directive requiring that to take place. I never have said you should not consider any contact with the head and neck area for an upgraded foul, just said that it is not automatic or must be called as a result of such contact. It could be ruled incidental as the rules state in 4-27 that severe contact can be ruled incidental and no such rule says that contact with the head and neck area cannot be ruled incidental. In this video, it is questionable if there is any contact as the defender from the angle moves backwards, but I see nothing that suggests contact was with or only with that area of the defender. As I stated before, if the contact is with the torso and after that, there is some contact above the shoulders, then in this particular play it is incidental at best. Again, still cannot show me a place where the rules say what you are suggesting. It is a judgment call and not a very good one if that is your point of view. But what else is new?


Peace