What do you have???

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You note that the defender falls to his right, I noticed that, too. His right is the wrong direction based on where the shooter falls. To me, it's an ovious flop that prevents him from drawing a charge call. This is the only thing the defender does wrong, IMO.

Which is exactly why I agree...based on 2 seconds of crappy video and bad angle....the correct call was made.

By the free throw line extended B1 was far enough ahead that A1 was anticipating a train wreck, which is why he fell so awkwardly when B1 flopped.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Take two billiard balls and have them hit such that the impact is substantially off center in the same manner the two players came together. Their direction after impact will cause them to split....one to the right, one to the left. The shooter has the most momentum so he continued more forward than to the side but was still deflected to the right. The slower moving object (defender) will be deflected mostly to the left...and little to the back.

Camron, human beings aren't billiard balls. If the defender was drifting to his left, and the shooter drifting to his right (not really disputed here), the defender would have fallen in roughly the same direction as the shooter due to his own momentum.

Seriously, when's the last time you saw two roughly equally sized opponents hit each other and react like an eight-ball off the queue?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I'll agree you can't necessarily tell exactly when there was contact and you can't also tell anything about forward defensive movement, but you can determine when the shooter was airborne and lateral defensive movement after that time and that the movement is inconsistent with prior contact. And that is all we need to know. Lateral defensive movement is the one thing you can still see perfectly even when straightlined.

On the court, yes; on grainy video, not necessarily.

Let me say this. If the defender was leaning to the side when contact was made; easy block. From the video, it's possible. I don't trust the camera, on this, though. To assume the player's position in relation to the fixed point means he moved assumes the camera didn't move. Even a change in the angle of the shot would move the fixed point in relation to the player. This video is inconclusive, IMO.

Originally Posted by Camron

OK...let's assume contact started between 4 and 5.

The shooter's waist was even with the defender's waist in frame 3 (shoulder to shoulder too). In frame 4, the shooter waist is even with the defender's shoulder. While you can't see the shooter's feet, there is no other explanation than for the shooter to already be in the air before frame 4....just too much elevation to be anything else. Now, if the shooter had contacted the defender prior to frame 5, it would have caused the defender to be knocked towards the basket but he wasn't...so there was no contact before frame 5.

You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.

I still fall back on my earlier stance. If we have to break this down frame-by-frame, even if we all agreed on the correct call, the other call is completely understandable in real time on the run.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

If it was a break away for the offensive player and uncontested do you think the offensive player would have fallen like that on his own???

Sometimes players lean when they jump expecting the defender to come underneath them and if the defender bails out the offensive players ends up crashing to the floor. I had this scenario last season. Player drove, jumped, leaned, and at the last possible second, before contact was made, the defender simply backed up and the offensive player came crashing to the floor. It was a 3-man crew and me (Lead) and my partner (Trail) saw the exact same thing. The coach who was 70 feet away kept insisting there had to be a foul, that his player would not just fall to the floor on his own.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Sometimes players lean when they jump expecting the defender to come underneath them and if the defender bails out the offensive players ends up crashing to the floor. I had this scenario last season. Player drove, jumped, leaned, and at the last possible second, before contact was made, the defender simply backed up and the offensive player came crashing to the floor. It was a 3-man crew and me (Lead) and my partner (Trail) saw the exact same thing. The coach who was 70 feet away kept insisting there had to be a foul, that his player would not just fall to the floor on his own.

In that instance I totally agree. However, that is not the case on this play.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

In that instance I totally agree. However, that is not the case on this play.

Yeah, but you asked the question whether or not a player could fall on his own in support of your viewpoint on this play. The answer is obviously yes. So you shouldn't use that argument as a supporting factor.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

In that instance I totally agree. However, that is not the case on this play.

Are you saying that A1 is already almost parallel to the floor because of contact with B1??? A1 is already almost parallel at the instant of contact here.

Usually on a hard fall to the floor with a legitimate B1 block, A1 would still be mostly upright.

I agree with Jeff on this one......A1 tried to "flop a block" just as much as B1 tried to "flop a charge"

[JugglingReferee]

I am praying for this thread to die....

PLEASE! Enough already!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I am praying for this thread to die....

PLEASE! Enough already!

You could always, um, quit reading it.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You could always, um, quit reading it.

Ya ya I know. But then I might miss something good. I'm home watching the Olympics, so I have the day to myself... may as well surf the net while watching.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yeah, he showed a complete lack of professionalism.

Ouch.

Shutup.

I think I hate whoever the official is in that film because he caused this 13 page-long mess!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

To assume the player's position in relation to the fixed point means he moved assumes the camera didn't move. Even a change in the angle of the shot would move the fixed point in relation to the player. This video is inconclusive, IMO.

Given the relative distances involved, the camera would have moved several feet between frames in order to give a impression of movement of a small amount....the camera man would need to be at a full sprint in the bleachers running towards the backcourt while holding a camera over his shoulder to move that much in 1/30 of a second. Additionally, other elements between the frames can be used to establish how stationary the camera was.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.
.

Agree. I've always agreed there was a flop.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still fall back on my earlier stance. If we have to break this down frame-by-frame, even if we all agreed on the correct call, the other call is completely understandable in real time on the run.

The other call being a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because the defender flopped out of what would have been a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because it was so close and hard to tell...that i can't agree on. And that is my main issue..some of the "no-calls" seem to be based on the closeness of the play....and that is not acceptable. I would simply have no issue with either call as long as a call was made on this one.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The other call being a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because the defender flopped out of what would have been a charge, I can agree. The other call being a no-call because it was so close and hard to tell...that i can't agree on.

We're in 99% agreement, then.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And that is my main issue..some of the "no-calls" seem to be based on the closeness of the play....and that is not acceptable.

To me, it's close between a no-call (due to the flop) and a block. One call is right, the other is wrong; but both are understandable.

I haven't seen anyone say it's too close to call so just let it go. Maybe I missed it.