Watta ya got video?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by cmathews

The act of shooting has nothing to do with this. If he has LGP it doesn't matter if the ballhandler is shooting or picking his nose.

Nope, when he starts his normal routine he is in the act of shooting. In this play the act of shooting starts about a step away from the contact. That is when he picks up his dribble to begin to shoot (any further out and it would have been a travel).

You are completely wrong on this. Go back and read the book.

Originally Posted by cmathews

The original poster didn't have to go to the monitor. He nailed it full speed in real time.

Yes, but he wasn't sure, which is my point. The video supported his call, however, how can you make a decision that's going to decide the game and you not be sure? That's my point!

Some of you have also gone with the no-call analogy on this play at the basket to decide the game. Though I do not agree with that position, I can certainly respect how you got there. The timing was such that you couldn't pick a culprit. However, I believe I have found a definitive answer to this position and my position.

Rule:4-27-5. If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from an a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

To me, the defender was late getting there, regardless of the fact he got his feet set a split second b/4 the contact, so he is the player in the most unfavorable position, therefore, he is responsible for the contact. You certainly cannot say the offensive player is in the unfavorable position. We're also certainly bordering on incidental contact here, a no-call. In fact, I was real close to a no-call myself but I'm not letting that much of a collision go without coming up with something. My decision was against the player in the most unfavorable position, the defense.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Old School

You are completely wrong on this. Go back and read the book.

can I borrow yours?? I seemed to have misplaced mine. Which would indicate that I did originally have one. Can you say that? Oh wait I am just yanking your chain, mine is up in my pickup, but I don't have to go read it. I know when the shooting motion starts, I also know that it isn't pertinent to this situation. If however the call had been a block it would be pertinent, because then the player in the act of shooting would get credit for the basket, we wouldn't shoot the free throw because the game had been decided ... NOW shall we take a poll and and see if I am completely wrong. LOL..

Originally Posted by Old School

Yes, but he wasn't sure, which is my point. The video supported his call, however, how can you make a decision that's going to decide the game and you not be sure? That's my point!

Yeah he was sure. He was sure enough to let the players send the game to OT...and the video supported his call as you have said, but above you said it was a block, you don't have a point except for the one on top of your pointy little head LOL...how is that saturday night gig working for you now?

Originally Posted by Old School

To me, the defender was late getting there, regardless of the fact he got his feet set a split second b/4 the contact, so he is the player in the most unfavorable position, therefore, he is responsible for the contact.

if he is there before the ball handler he is there before the ball handler, if he is late he is late, you cannot say he was late but got there before the ball handler.....wow...you might actually be the inspiration for the aflak duck and all the confused looks LOL....

[rockyroad]

I'm not sure where Old School keeps getting this idea that RookieDude was "unsure" of his call...he posted the video and asked opinions. He's a good official and wanted to learn and help others learn - that doesn't mean he was unsure of his call...

Secondly, the whole concept of unfavorable position does NOT apply to a player who has established lgp...so using it as an argument in this scenario is really weak...but then, so are most of this clown's arguments.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by cmathews

can I borrow yours?? I seemed to have misplaced mine. Which would indicate that I did originally have one. Can you say that? Oh wait I am just yanking your chain, mine is up in my pickup, but I don't have to go read it. I know when the shooting motion starts, I also know that it isn't pertinent to this situation.

I got mine here so I will help you.

Rule 4-23-4.b: ...Guarding an opponent with the ball. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal guarding position before the opponent (feet) left the floor.

This comes down to when the offensive player feet left the floor and when the defenders feet was set. This is the part we where all unsure about. It comes down to you having to watch both of their feet at the exact same time to accurately determine because it was so close.

Now that you are up to speed, would you please STFU and stay out of grown folks conversation. Your innuendo is not helping. Remember, this is not about me, this is not about OS.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

I got mine here so I will help you.

Rule 4-23-4.b: ...Guarding an opponent with the ball. If the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard must have obtained legal guarding position before the opponent (feet) left the floor.

This comes down to when the offensive player feet left the floor and when the defenders feet was set.

Good, as long as you've got your book out, where's the part about the defender's feet needing to be set?

[cmathews]

Yep you are right they have to establish position before the ball handler leaves the floor. What does this have to do with shooting, or when the act of shooting started? I will type really slowly for you here, cause I am guessing you might not be able to read too fast.

I said LGP has nothing to do with whether the player is shooting or picking their nose. If they have LGP on the ballhandler, they have LGP on the ballhandler period.

Now shall we go on to discuss who can be in the adult conversations and such LOL...you actually make me laugh out loud here. One of my coworkers just asked me what I was laughing about....

[Old School]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I'm not sure where Old School keeps getting this idea that RookieDude was "unsure" of his call...he posted the video and asked opinions. He's a good official and wanted to learn and help others learn - that doesn't mean he was unsure of his call...

Originally Posted by RookieDude

JR...you are so right! (on all counts) It was a close one...and it was my game and my call.

You can freeze-frame it if you put the pointer on the moving "slide-ball"...after viewing it I felt a little better. I see the defender having both feet set a fraction of a second before the dribbler becomes an airborne shooter.

I couldn't see no-calling it either...both players on the ground, something had to be called, IMO. (Add insult to injury...5th foul on dribbler...he doesn't get to even play in the OT) Also, isn't it Fed philosophy if an official has a close "block/charge" call and isnt' sure...go with the charge?

Secondly, the whole concept of unfavorable position does NOT apply to a player who has established lgp...so using it as an argument in this scenario is really weak...but then, so are most of his arguments.

I disagree.....

[Old School]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Good, as long as you've got your book out, where's the part about the defender's feet needing to be set?

Rule 4-23-2a.

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by Old School

I disagree.....

Rule:4-27-5. If, however, a player approaches an opponent from behind or from an a position from which he/she has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility is on the player in the unfavorable position.

Did the defender approach from behind, hmmmmmmmm nope not as I recall....Did he have a reasonable chance to play the ball, yeah I am saying he did, since it went right by his forehead....However being well coached he knew better than to reach for the ball and maybe committ a foul. He stood his ground (granted he didn't have to stand it long LOL ) and took a charge. A charge which was the right call, at the right time, supported by video, and all pertinent rules.....the one about him approaching from behind not withstanding...Thank goodnes OS wasn't officiating the game, he may have come out with an intentional foul for the block because the player with the ball started dribbling at the top of the key, and therefore has the right to a clear path to the basket, and thus the defender was fouling to negate an obviously advantageous position.....at least that is how the OSNBA (OS never been attagame) wants it called LOL

[rockyroad]

So it was a bang-bang play and a call was made...RookieDude made the call correctly BY THE BOOK, and there is no plausible argument that Old School has yet made or can make that will negate the fact that RD got the call right...but since Old Sh!thead decided to start the ball rolling here, we all know who in this post needs to STFU until he figures out what the hell he is talking about...

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I'm not sure where Old School keeps getting this idea that RookieDude was "unsure" of his call...he posted the video and asked opinions. He's a good official and wanted to learn and help others learn - that doesn't mean he was unsure of his call...

Secondly, the whole concept of unfavorable position does NOT apply to a player who has established lgp...so using it as an argument in this scenario is really weak...but then, so are most of this clown's arguments.

I thought he was more than confident in his call, and the fact that he posted the video which he knew would be subject to high scrutiny here speaks volumes about him and his character. Again, from the video, I would have called a block which doesn't mean squat. He was there , in position and comfortable in his call. I wish I could do a few games with a guy like that.

[rulesmaven]

I think that this may be the best thread I've ever read here. It scores a perfect 10 both on its educational value and its entertainment value.

From the I-just-can't-resist-department, how about this video:

Anyone have PC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqPBJ_6y_5A

I love the tournament.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Old School

I got mine here so I will help you.

Again, as long you have your book there, can you quote me a rule that hasn't already been posted previously by other people on this thread? Iow, please show us you really do have a book, and that this statement is not an outright lie.

For example, you mentioned earlier in this thread about "habitual motion". Can you cite the rule that mentions habitual motion?

[Old School]

Originally Posted by cmathews

Did the defender approach from behind, hmmmmmmmm nope not as I recall....Did he have a reasonable chance to play the ball, yeah I am saying he did, since it went right by his forehead....However being well coached he knew better than to reach for the ball and maybe committ a foul. He stood his ground (granted he didn't have to stand it long LOL ) and took a charge. A charge which was the right call, at the right time, supported by video, and all pertinent rules.....

My position CMatthews, and I'm not saying I'm correct on this, but my position is that the rule was not enforced intelligently. The player being well coached is a good argument. The only problem is, he got there too late, imo, to establish LGP without causing contact. When you take everything into consideration, this is what you have to look at. If you just approach it from the standpoint of the book and this one rule which is what I hear you saying. You got a rulebook call.

The defensive player would have done better in my book, had he not went for the CHARGE and just went to defend the basket. Taking everything into consideration, this was the best choice left on the table, depend the basket, try to block the shot. The offensive player had too much momentum going to try and cutoff with the charge. Enter R4-27-5. When you look at the collision in this play, you can see it's not your patient contact to the torso charge. It's more of a train wreck where we got to people converging on the same point at the same time. At best, you should be thinking incidental contact, enter R4-27-5.

The intelligent enforcement of the rule should have been a block. Calling a charge on this play, unfairly punishes good offensive basketball.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by rulesmaven

I think that this may be the best thread I've ever read here. It scores a perfect 10 both on its educational value and its entertainment value.

From the I-just-can't-resist-department, how about this video:

Anyone have PC?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqPBJ_6y_5A

I love the tournament.

I would have game management check the fan blowers - I'm not sure we want air moving so violently that it's knocking down players.

Great no call.