Rut: you should get a new video card and a monitor... if there's no contact, then the shooter must have some crazy special skills to fall sideways like he did in the video.

Mu4scott: great job with the pictures and freeze frame. I agree with you that the defender moved into the shooter's path AFTER ONE of his feet left the floor. The defender also felt sideways, not directly backward and didn't get hit in the chest. No way I'd call a foul or a no call. I'm going with the block. The new lead was clearly straightlined on this play and have no angle to make the correct ruling. Who knows, he could've completely missed the body contact as he was watching the ball.

Does this mean the offense is considered airborne?

And there's the problem. Many officials don't understand the rules properly. How can they possibly make a correct decision on a play when they don't even understand what they should be looking for?

I've written the correct criteria in this very thread at least three times, and yet does this individual still writes that. How sad. :(

I once had a coach tell me something similar. I replied that might be true, but that my hearing was excellent. He got a technical foul. :D

Ummmmm, "one of his feet?" Did the defender move after the shooters other foot left the floor? If he's got a foot down, he's not airborne.

My personal rule is that if he goes beyond half a syllable, it's a T.

I agree with that. Ignore my earlier comment. I misunderstood what was being asked. I pictured a defender stepping backwards into the landing area of an airborne player who was trying to avoid him.

I did not say there was or there was not contact. You are the main one talking about what did take place, not me. I told you (if you can read) that the video is very blurry and inconclusive to see much of anything. And just having contact does not mean there is a foul like someone else pointed out to you in the rules. But hey, you are the expert right? ;)

Peace

I cannot speak for you, but players do fall while trying to do things they cannot do. It happens all the time. That very thing happened in the last regular season game I had. I was the lead and a big time star was driving to the basket and he fell. I did not have a great angle and I did not guess. Both my partners had a much better look at the play from their point of view. They passed on the play because they saw him fall, but all indications looked like their might have been some contact. There was contact, but the dribbler (big time star mind you) fell to the floor and lost the ball. Now if I used your logic and assumed there was something illegal, at least according to my two partners I would have been wrong to just call a foul. This is a play I would like to hear what the official had to say, rather than just looking at a video. And as a clinician in many camps this summer, I would ask the officials on the floor, "What did you see?" Often their answer told me more about what I thought I saw than what really happened.

I will give you a perfect answer. If the defender fell as if no one touched him (or a flop), then it is hard to come to the conclusion there was much contact. And the fact that we are only looking at someone's back (the shooter), and then I can come to some other conclusion that there was contact. Also the way the player fell was suggestive to me as if they missed the defender for the most part and fell as a result of being out of control and not because of contact.

If you have not noticed, I am giving my "opinion" too. I never said this was what actually took place. I said that this is what it looked like to me. Now if you disagree that is fine. But when I was at camps all summer, people disagreed left and right about plays that happen. So we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because nothing you have said changes my mind.

Well I guess all players that attempt to jump in the air are always under control. Once again, I would like to be in position to make a call and not guessing by a blurry video. Maybe that is just me. ;)

Peace

You need to get a better video card. He fell flat on his front, not on his side. And if someone falls on their front part of their body and they just made contact with a person right in front of them, why did he not fall on the defender? Inquiring minds want to know?

Peace

see nothing
some incidential contac

"It is not clear there was much or any contact." - JRut..

(Enough said, I'm done debating this issue w/ you)

"He fell flat on his front, not on his side. And if someone falls on their front part of their body and they just made contact with a person right in front of them, why did he not fall on the defender? Inquiring minds want to know?" -JRut

(For a blurry video you sure saw his body positioning awfully clear. The defender bailed out/flopped thus the offensive player could not land on him).

As I stated earlier in the thread this has been a great play for discussing other officials views and how others might see the same play. For some reason you seem to be threatened (thus insulting myself and others) when others don't see things your way. I spent time breaking down this video and trying to explain what I saw. Most on here agree after seeing it frame-by-frame that the contact warranted a foul.

As I've told you before not everyone on this forum is an elite official. I guess it makes you feel better to come on here and belittle the less experienced (yes I can read). Have a nice evening JRut.

If you are so worried about being belittled, then stop acting like everyone has to see what you see. For one it is clear to me you either do you have the experience of seeing this kind of play or you would accept that veterans have a take not only based on the tape, but their extensive experience. And the blurry part of the video and the angle I would not bet a game check there was contact or that the contact was significant or illegal. I have seen that play several times where no contact or little contact occurred and the shooter falls hard to the floor. If you do not want to buy that, then why do you still debate with me (and others) what we saw? You obviously know more than us. Remember I am not coming here to learn from you, I can see for myself and that is why I go to camps every year and several times a year. It is clear you must not be able to read very well if you cannot see my point of view very well. Or you are just another official that thinks they know everything. Unlike you I know I did not have the best angle, you on the other hand know what happen. It was not like I was the only one either (I might have been first to say it, but not the only one). :D

Peace

I guess breaking down tape is forcing everyone to "see what I see". I kind of thought it enhanced and furthered the discussion.

My bad.

Breaking down the tape does not change facts (you are not the only person that breaks down tape). And if you cannot see that, you have a really long way to go. ;)

Peace

True enough, but show me someone who can jump up vertically and land horizontally without someone else touching them.

Wow...

Breaking down tape helps to see things more clearly and thus decipher the facts. That's why I did so on this particulair play because there are such varied opinions.

I fully realize that I've not pionered the art of instant replay and the process of framing videos.

I'm trying to get to an NCAA Final Four so yes I'm very aware that I have a long way to go.

Just so you know, people that break down tape extensively, do not always agree on the same things they see. Why is that you might ask yourself? Maybe the angle was not good on the tape. Maybe the people watching do not have the same judgment level. Maybe the people watching do not have the same experience level. Just maybe they simply disagree on what took place (there is a novel idea).

You sound like you want a cookie or an award because you broke down this play instead of taking in what others have to say and why they have to say it.

You will never get the opportunity if the people that make those decisions feel you know more than what they know. And I am going to tell you that this play would likely be discussed on many levels and someone might actually disagree with your opinion.

I go to a lot of college camps and if I have learned anything from them, I know not nearly as much as they do and I know when to take in their advice even when I disagree with them instead of insisting that I am right, just because. If you disagree with my point of view on this situation that is your right to do so, I do not recall that your disagreeing with me is going to change my life any. And just because you show frame by frame does not change the fact that you cannot see how much contact, if there was contact or if there was contact by looking at someone’s back. You must be able to look between players to call this play one way or the other. And if there is an official in the best position, they had a better look than you or I did. And if you do not realize that, not much anyone can do to help you.

Peace

That clears it up for all of us.

Greg Louganis.

You don’t have to be able to “look in between” the players to tell there is contact at this point. This is the most disturbing part to me is that you won't admit there is definitely contact here.
<a href="http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/?action=view&current=6-1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/6-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Answer this for me. What if this was a three whistle game and the lead official in this instance was actually the “C” on this play. For the sake of discussion let’s say the offensive player is trying to rebound the ball in the frame above off a missed shot. In order for you to call the offensive player for the infamous “over the back” do you have to be able to see in between them to call it from the “C” position?

That's just wrong.

Funny, but wrong.

Oh, about 50% of the population of Hackensack!!:eek:

And I still say that this whole 8 pages could have been avoided if the official hadn't been so lazy on the court!:mad:

Yeah, he showed a complete lack of professionalism.

First, I agree there was contact.
Second, I believe (because of view) it was incidental.

If defender would not have bailed (flopped) I got a possible PC but as Jeff said video quality was poor. But it was good enough to see a flop at full speed first time thru..IMO.

Looks like A1's landing was based on his thinking that there was "going to be" a train wreck. (Imagine sitting down and somebody pulling the chair on you, you are not going to fall down in the sitting postion, you will fall awkwardly.)

Official (trail --> new lead) was way behind...looks like he was not at least anticipating the loose ball that started this whole thing heading up the floor...10 players were already headed up the floor before he even turned that way.

I agree completely with Coach P.

He's as blind as a Nevada Bat, just like I am. :)

Nope...if he had jumped straight up he would have landed back on the platform. He jumped out with some initial rotation and took 3 or 10 meters to fall to water's surface. Plenty of time for that minor rotation to develop (in a full tuck) into a complete rotation.

Whoa! Looks like a really bad travel in the post.

Block on the crash. Defender was not set when offensive player began shooting motion.

May have been a goaltend by the secondary defender. It is hard to tell whether he contacted the ball or not.

I'm trying to quit picking on words, but this begs me to respond. He doesn't have to be set, he only needs to have LGP. Being "set" is coachspeak that only perpetuates misconceptions.

The defender doesn’t have to have LGP (or be set as you put it) when the offensive player starts the shooting motion for a PC call. LGP has to be made and maintained before contactto get the charge.

Fixed it for you. :)

I do not call "over the backs" so I would have no idea what you are talking about.

You have all the answers big shot. I stated my position. I hope that Final Four career is going to works out for you. ;)

Peace

What's "over the back?"

Let me rephrase it for you.... Have you ever called a foul from the "C" position on an offensive player while he/she was trying go over/thru a defensive player while they were blocking out? This play is typically in every contest and is usually brought on after a missed shot attempt.

I've been told this call should be made by the "C" and was wondering if you agree?

"I hope that Final Four career is going to works out for you. " - JRut

Seems to be going well. I'm ahead of schedule so I'm pleased.

Are you from Southern California?

:(
Sigh. Despite all the effort that some of us have put into this thread and many others, folks such as this continue to use fantasy standards to judge plays instead of the real rules.

Perhaps he can serve as an example of how not to do it and others can learn something from his errors.

I wonder if he went to the same "pro" training as btaylor.

No but Greg Louganis is my neighbor if that helps.

The C would be in poor position to make such a call because of his straight-line positioning. If this play were rebounding action, he should have moved topside (up towards the top of the key and out onto the floor a step or two pretending as if he were the Trail). That positioning would give him the proper angle to see contact between the players. Any call from his current positioning is just going to be a guess.

BTW if you believe that the "rebounder" in white should be penalized for a foul on your hypothetical play, then doesn't that mean that you believe that he is responsible for the contact? So why would you penalize his opponent and reward his similar action when he is trying for goal? Just a point to consider.

If you are so ahead of schedule, then why are you arguing an insignificant point online? You should be like "Bhuck Elics" and not be around here in the first place. But I digress.

Since you insist on telling me what should or should not be called. I have made foul calls from the C, but there is much more contact than that and the contacting players do not fall to the ground in two separate places. And they really do not fall in two separate places when there is significant contact. And as I said, to me it looks clearly as if there was a flop by the defender which reduced any real contact and the shooter was surprise that he did not just run into the defender, which is why he fell front first (but you seemed to cannot see that on the video).

Peace

It was a block. The defender moved laterally into the path of the dribbler and created contact.

Is that better?

This board must be full of English majors.

I said I'm trying to quit. :)

My status as on official has nothing to w/ debating this play.

Players landing on top of each other should be a factor on if I have a foul? or the severity of a foul? I've never heard of that reasoning.

I'm also of the belief that if the defender flops and causes any contact at all then I'm going to bang him for a foul on a play like this.

On the video I see contact and that's why he fell on his front side. I also clearly noted the defenders position and how he moved into the path of the shooter. I guess you choose not to see that part so clearly, but other parts you see just fine.

I understand your point about the contact if the situation were reversed, but I believe the difference is that he was on a direct path for the goal.

As far calling a foul from the "C" position goes I was merely trying to point out the fact that I personally call the offensive rebounder for this foul during games. It would be impossible in most cases to only call the foul if you can't see space between their bodies. Just not possible to get that positioning on a consistent basis.

You're right, we just don't see it as clearly as you do. :shrug:

BTW, I still say that even if I'm wrong, the fact that this play is so close makes a no-call entirely appropriate.

I do not mean if a play is 51-49 between block and charge that a no-call is ok. I mean that if a play is 51-49 between block and no-call, a no-call is acceptable.

I agree that from a game management standpoint, this play needs a whistle. No calls on plays like this is the reason rough play has been a point of emphasis for 35 years. :>

I cannot speak for everyone else, but it does for me. When you keep debating points like "I broke down the tape" and you are not even seeing that someone with experience might have seen similar plays and come to a different take than you have, then your status as an official means something to me. Because if you are just a JV official trying to debate this with official that have worked levels you have not achieved, what you have worked does matter to me. It tells me what you know and what you might not know at all.

I never said it was a reasoning for a foul or not a reasoning for a foul (which goes back to my point above BTW). I said those were indications to me that there was little or no contact. And if there was little or no contact, the fact the player fell hard would not make me call a foul automatically.

A flop is to exaggerate the contact and convince the official of something illegal. It does not mean they were the cause for the contact. I guess that illustrates the reason why people here are giving you crap for your rules knowledge on this in my opinion. Notice I have not once brought up what the rule is or should be. I am only talking about the judgment of the play.

That is why we get paid the big bucks right? And there is a reason why some people make it to the Final Four and others do not. If you are right and the people you work for feel you are right (or wrong) that is all that matters. It does not matter what we say on an officiating board and what you think you saw. Unlike you though, I trust the official in the video much better than what I "think" I see and I also trust my own experiences, because I have seen similar plays in my career and seeing a player fall hard to the ground.

Peace

This sums up my feelings about this play.

You're assuming that I am somehow less experienced. You're also saying that you can't learn anything from an official who is not at your level. Very, very sad.

I have no idea what this sentence means.


I know that I showed obvious factual still shots on how the defender moved into the path of the offensive player. How you can dispute this is beyond me.

First of all, it's debatable. It looks to me as if he's jumping to the side of B1 to try to get by him for the shot.

Second of all, it's irrelevant; unless you can find the rule that changes things when the shooter is "on a direct path for the goal."

Bull. If you can't see actual contact, you don't make the call.

It is not about my level, it is about your level. Officials that have done a lot do not argue the points you do (in my experience) and keep talking as if they saw everything on tape. Rather than asking yourself (like I have done and others have done) did the official see something we could not see on the tape? And you have made it clear that not only was there a foul, that what you saw was the only thing that could have happen. This either shows little experience on your part, or a complete willingness to respect other's opinions. I have never said what should or should not be called. I have always stood by the fact I personally did not see what you saw and based on the information I would “likely” (which means without further information) not call anything. And it is sad to me that if you were so big-time, you would know that the official had a much better angle then we did on this tape. You have not once even acknowledged that in any way. I went to 3 camps where some of the best officials in the Midwest and parts of the south (and you could say country) evaluated me and many others. When they disagreed with a call we made, most of the time they asked "What did you see?" And they let us answer because they wanted to know if we saw the same thing that they did. And in most cases they also deferred to the official making the call, while saying what they "think" they saw on the play. Now why could officials that work the NCAA Tournament (and in some cases the Final Four and Championship games) have enough sense to know they did not have the best angle, but you are a wannabe Final Four official (that includes me and others here I am sure) know more than everyone else here?

If I was observing a game from that angle, there is no way I would say what you claim to see as "factual." Then again, that is why you are lost for words about something you clearly do not have the experience in doing. You must not observe officials like I do and I want more information than just an angle on a blurry video. And usually you get that information by asking the official that had the best angle. Now if you can get that official to come forward and tell us what he saw, I might have a different take. But until than, it looks like little to no contact and not something I think needed to be called a foul. And certainly not something that needed to be called because a player fell hard to the floor (another flawed point of view in my opinion).

Peace

[QUOTE=JRutledge]I cannot speak for everyone else, but it does for me. When you keep debating points like "I broke down the tape" and you are not even seeing that someone with experience might have seen similar plays and come to a different take than you have, then your status as an official means something to me. Because if you are just a JV official trying to debate this with official that have worked levels you have not achieved, what you have worked does matter to me. It tells me what you know and what you might not know at all.

Rut, first off, as one of the elder statesmen on this board, I have a lot of respect for your game.

I however, strongly disagree with some of your opinions. First off, the new lead is WAY out of position to officiate the crash. Regardless of the judgment on the play, this is where the problem lies. Even if you get this call right, your believability will take a severe hit based on the official's position.

I also think this play needs a whistle. If in your judgment, the defender flopped, that sounds like an easy block. The offensive player hits the ground HARD and the official and a team mate needs to help him up.

But in the end, this is just a stupid board and getting this play right on the court is a easier said than done.

I'll be honest, the fact that you tried to define "incidental contact," a common term when discussing plays like this, with a dictionary rather than the rule book is a sign of inexperience. At the very least, it displays a lack of rules awareness that is surprising for someone aspring to officiate an NCAA Final Four.

And he didn't say he can't learn from someone with less experience or not at his level. He said it's not why he comes here. He said the level you officiate matters when deciding how much value to give your statements. This is just common sense for life; any time you take advice you should know the experience and expertise level of those who are offering the advice.

LOL.....now that was funny.:D

1. Travel on Green post player. I have a patient whistle, and am not the type to micro-manage travelling - but that was an obvious travel that allowed an advantage. It just leaped out at me when I watched the video.

2. Block. A half-second earlier and the defender gets the call, but he was late. Ref the defense.

As for primaries - a collision like that needs a whistle - at every level. I personally don't care which of the two guys calls it. We can rip the new lead in the post game for passing on a train wreck. Yes, he was beaten on the play, but when the crash happened, he had a decent enough look (the "centre" look, if you will) and had enough to call something.

In the end, this entire sequence should not have happened - L or T on the original play should have called that post player for travelling.

And then all of the 51-49 plays for the rest of that game should be no calls too, right? :)

The lead missed the travel because he was too busy with his visible count. :>

I personally do not care if you disagree. I do not expect everyone or most people on here to ever agree with something I say. We all do not come from same officiating background or experience. I would not expect everyone here to always agree, especially on a judgment call.

At least you use the word "think." ;)

And just because a player hits the floor hard, does not change my position on this in any way. I have seen players fall hard to the floor, only to have no one contact them. And the reason the player fell hard is the reason I feel there should not be a call. And the rules back me up on this, because contact can be severe is not be a foul according to rule 4-27 if there is no advantage created by the contact. And on most flops where I come from, we do not call anything even with more contact than I saw here.

You seem to have a larger understanding of this conversation then your friend you seem to agree with. :D

Peace

As far as breaking down tape, if a play needs to be broken down frame-by-frame to determine if the right call was made then the supervisor isn't going to have much beef with whatever call was made.

What the supervisor will be looking for is to see whether or not the official put himself in a good position to see the play, what the official says he saw on the play, and why the official called or no-called the play.

I personally didn't see a "collision." Not that it wasn't there, I just don't think the video gives us good enough perspective to make that claim. I will agree that the official had a "decent enough look" that I'll defer to his judgment without a better video.

BTW, I'll try to look again tonight to see if I see it differently than the first 5 times I watched it.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!

We have a winner. Someone else here was saying the same thing; can't remember who, though.

I’m going to stop this back and forth with you JRut.

I think there needs to be a whistle on this play as I see it on the clip. Airborne shooter, hard crash and contact equals whistle from me. I can’t pass on it.

I go to camps as well and believe me if I have a clinician or an assignor telling me something I’m yes sir, no sir. This forum allows us to debate things more freely due to its anonymity.

So in the long run we disagree. Not that big of a deal

Yup, same with the 49-51 plays.

Let's, for a moment, assume that there was simply a collision and ignore the near-zero possibility that there was no contact at all and ignore the flop that we all agree was present (which may only discount a charge but not a block).

Being a difficult/close call on a collision of this nature is not an excuse to have a no-call. All that being close does is make either call (block or charge) justifiable. It doesn't turn it into a no call. Calling nothing makes everyone (both teams/coaches/fans and even partners) wonder if you're even watching the game. It suggests that you're either indecisive or aloof.

I've heard our assignor and many others (clinician, mentors, etc.) repeatedly state that there should be a whistle when there is a block/charge collision (aka, train wreck) and two or more bodies go down (impying at least 1 from each team). One of the players is definitely responsible for the contact...the defender was there or they weren't. Some call needs to be made based on what you did see.

There might have been contact, but not at all was there a collision. The contact had to be slight at best. Even in the little break down, there is space between the chest of the defender and the shooter. And the way the player fell, clearly shows that the contact did not result in the falling of the shooter. The shooter was out of control and just because he fell does not warrant a foul. There has to be something illegal, not just the end result of what we “think” happen. And that is the point that many of us are making. If we make calls simply because someone fell, then we are going to make a lot of bad calls as a result.

Peace

I'm going to vehemently but respectfully disagree with those of you who felt there was "absolutely no collision". That shooter did not wind up landing flat on his stomach on his own.

There might have been some contact, but collision is a bit much. And that is why some people's judgment is considered good and other are considered bad. Someone is going to think you or I are wrong. I can live with my judgment on this.

I'm TOTALLY with you on this. The defender clearly DID NOT STOP and establish guarding position and disrupted the balance of the shooter. Think RSBQ. No supervisor will ever question calling a blocking foul, but a no call or PC?? Hmmmmmm.......

He doesn't have to stop to establish or maintain LGP. Doesn't have to be set, and doesn't have to stop.

Gosh darn you JRut.... I was going to leave this alone and then you have to chime in w/ another gem. You can't honestly believe the offensive player was out of control... Please tell me you are joking???

I've watched this clip a 100x times and never once did I even remotely think the dribbler was out of control.

You obviously have not read my previous comments. And I clearly do not buy into your take on this play. If the defender did anything wrong, it is because the shooter lucked out. I am sorry; players under control do not fall away from the person they run into. The shooter could have did a jump shot or even passed the ball away. No one told him to do Michael Jordan and try to fly over someone. This player obviously is not that good.

And once again, the officials in this game passed on calling anything. I know that is one fact you want to keep dismissing, but it is still the biggest fact of all.

Peace

The rule book doesn't say the defender must STOP. However, it states this:

NCAA 4.35. A4 - Guarding: to establish an initial legal guarding position on the player with the ball,
b.The guard's torso shall face the opponent
d. When the opponent with the ball is airborne, the guard shall have attained legal position before the opponent left the playing court

The position of the defender and the nature of the contact caused him to fall to his right (the left from our view) and the shooter to fall to his right (the rightside of the screen). The defender isn't in legal guarding position because his torso did not face the opponent (his left shoulder was the first part of the body hit by the airborne shooter). If the defender gets hit in the chest, then I'll go with the PC. But he got hit on the shoulder so I have a block. In addition, it looks as the shooter is already airborne before the defender got there on time. Based on that, I have another reason to call a block.

For the record, the NF took out the reference to the "chest" as apart of requiring a PC Foul if the defender was hit in the chest. Even your rule reference does not show that (and you will not find it there in other references or interpretations). They did that about 5 years ago with an editorial change. And all that is required is the defender face the ball handler at one time, the rule does not suggest that he stay that way. And the defender was clearly facing the defender at one time.

Peace

Blanket statements like this are just not true. 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???

Another blanket statement. How can you tell a player is "not that good" by him making one drive to the basket??? Secondly he went up for layup. I hardly think he was trying to "fly over someone".

Most of us would agree that there were multiple things that were missed on this play as well as a lack of hustle and anticipation. They might not be our best resource on this play.

That hole your digging is getting deeper JRut.;)

You are really missing the point of what I am saying. If you are under control, you hardly ever run into another player. He obviously was going to be defended based on the video. So a player that does a spin move and fall had to be fouled if we us your logic. And that was the very same example I gave in this thread about 10 pages ago. ;)

If you are going to accuse me of making a blanket statement, then why are you calling a foul based on how someone falls? At least I am looking at what I perceive the contact or lack of contact to be. I have never in this discussion used the type of contact as a justification of my point, except to illustrate what the rule clearly says about incidental contact. To this day you have not responded other than, “I think you are wrong.”

You have this entire thread argued how the player fell and used that as the threshold of why there should be a foul. Actually you are not the only one that has done that. If he landed on his feet, would you advocate a foul then too? I know I have called fouls on plays like this and no one fell to the floor. Based on what I am reading from you, they fall, you call a foul.

First of all what I am digging a hole for. I still have many games for this coming year despite what we discuss here. And getting beat happens all the time on plays and just because you "think" there was a foul, the officials still passed on the call. There was another official on the other side that also could have made a call if they felt they needed to. For some reason, he passed too. I guess that is a fact you cannot get around.

Peace

To add to Rut's point about the chest reference being removed; it's only a rule of thumb. 1. Defender had his torso facing, with two feet down, just barely in time; in my opinion. The official's head (and the video quality) prevent us from knowing for sure. 2. The shooter then attempts to jump to his right to get the shot off and avoid the charge call; losing his balance in the process.

3. 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.

Okay, reviewing the frame by frame, the angle and distance prevent any positive statements, IMO. It's too far, the camera is straightlined, and the film is too grainy. Obviously, Dad taking the video thinks otherwise; thus the video making it to youtube.

The defensive players movement between frames 4 and 5 can easily be explained if you think contact occured between the frames as well. But you really can't tell for sure when contact occurred. I think B1 starts his flop here, also explaining the change in position relative to the all important pole on the wall.

That is why I said "Let's, for a moment, assume that there was simply a collision ..."

It was to seperate the specific play in the video to a more general situation where we all agree that there was a collision.

Agreed, but that is not the foul I'm seeing. If that was the case contact in the chest), I'd rule the defender as having made it to the spot. I saw it as the defenders shoulder clipping the shooter near the waist as the defender shifted into the shooter.

I think it directly caused the shooter to fall. It was precisely the kind of reaction that occurs when the contact occurs as I described above.

I disagree here too. The shooter when up as shooters usually go up. He wasn't twisting and turning and throwing up a prayer. He when straight to the basket and got off a good shot (except that it got blocked).

I'm using the reaction of the shooter with the understanding basic physics as a confirmation of the contact I see. The physical impact on the shooter seals the judgement for what would have otherwise been a nocall.

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.

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.

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.

Yup, yup, and yup. Sure looked like (can't see the ball, but based on his actions) the green player had clean possession of the ball when he decided to audition for "So You Think You Can Dance." Obviously if not, no travel.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

<a href="http://s156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/?action=view&current=ref1r.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t36/mu4scott1973/ref1r.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

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.

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"

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

PLEASE! :eek: Enough already!

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.

Ouch. :(

Shutup. :p

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

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

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.

We're in 99% agreement, then.

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.