What do you have???

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

1. There is no "favor-the-offense" pro philosophy, they just believe that the onus to be legal is on the defender and if he is not completely legal he must be penalized with a foul..... We are taught the history and reasonings behind the rules so that we better understand the concept. Our concept is that we have an RA cause the league has the belief that you are not playing legitimate defense if you are standing underneath the basket. if a block/charge play is too freaking close to call (which for guys at that level is rare) it is a block. The reasoning: we want players to keep attacking the basket and not be afraid so that the game ends up turning into a pull up jump shot fest.

Actually Ben the rest of your quote does in fact support the premise that the NBA has a "favor-the-offense" philosophy. But I already surmised that based upon a debate I had with one of your colleagues.

And based on my camp experiences, especially this summer, it seems the college philosophy is opposite--the observers I worked in front of seemed to want those 50/50 block/charge plays to go against the offense.

[mu4scott]

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points.

I’ll start w/ frame 2 and use frame 1 as just a starting off point.

Frame 2:

I think it’s pretty clear the offensive player is gathering himself to go up for the shot and is moving towards the basket. In my estimation he is taking one final step (left foot) and then going up. Note the defensive position of the player in green. His right shoulder from this angle is in line w/ the edge of the bleachers.

Frame 3:

The offensive player has started his ascension towards the basket. I believe he has planted off his left foot and his right foot is off the ground due to his knee being bent and it’s above his left leg. The defensive player has clearly changed his floor position and has moved towards the baseline.

Frame 4:

The offensive player looks to have both feet off the ground or very close to doing so. The ball is clearly above his head and he appears to be moving towards the basket. The defensive position of green has moved again in this frame. He has continued to move into the path of the shooter.

Frame 5:

This is the last frame before the offensive player releases the ball. If a person was not sure in frame 4 if the player had both feet off the ground then it’s very clear that is the case now. The defender continues to move his position on the floor. His body has moved further into the path of the now airborne shooter. I believe this is where the first contact occurs.

Frame 6:

Offensive player has released the ball and his body has distinctively different positioning. His feet are now starting to become parallel with the rest of his body. It appears this has happened because his waist has come in contact with the players left shoulder and head.



Blocking foul on green and two shots for white.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

Here it is broken down to the best of my ability. I realize the photos are a little blurry, but it is what it is. I’m drawing the arrows in Microsoft paint so bear w/ me. There is a pole on the wall that is in each frame and you can clearly see the defensive player’s right shoulder in each shot as well. They will be the main reference points...

The fact that this play has to be broken down frame-by-frame only reinforces that it was a call that could go either way.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The fact that this play has to be broken down frame-by-frame only reinforces that it was a call that could go either way.

Exactly right. So what happens if we have another play later in the game that's so close it has to broken down frame-by-frame? It could go either way. So. . . It better be the same call as whatever is made on this play, regardless of which end of the court it happens on.

[mu4scott]

I guess my main point is that a whistle has to be blown on this. I don't think you can pass on it.

[Adam]

And I think, from what I saw on the video (not frame by frame), a no-call is acceptable.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And I think, from what I saw on the video (not frame by frame), a no-call is acceptable.

I don’t care for the term “acceptable” in this situation. Too much grey area in that. If there is contact (which I obviously think there was) then there needs to be a whistle one way or the other.

We are not going to agree on this and that’s fine, but answer me this.

With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game? What if that player had been seriously injured and flipped even further and landed on his head, instead of his elbow?

With an airborne shooter and there is contact I have a whistle. Better to err on the side of caution in my opinion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

I don’t care for the term “acceptable” in this situation. Too much grey area in that. If there is contact (which I obviously think there was) then there needs to be a whistle one way or the other.

We are not going to agree on this and that’s fine, but answer me this.

With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game?

No. Look up the rule on incidental contact, particularly the "may be severe" portion. For what it's worth, I used "acceptable" because of the poor angle and quality of the video; and because I tend to defer to the judgment of the officials on the court without concrete evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

What if that player had been seriously injured and flipped even further and landed on his head, instead of his elbow?

You gonna call a charge on him just because he gets injured?

Originally Posted by mu4scott

With an airborne shooter and there is contact I have a whistle. Better to err on the side of caution in my opinion.

I couldn't disagree with this more. Let's assume for a second that the defender was there in time (which I think he was), and that the defender did not fall backward in anticipation of contact. Let's assume he was not affected at all by contact that the airborne shooter is clearly responsible for.

You claim you have to have a whistle on any contact with an airborne shooter involved. Who you calling the foul on? Based on what rule?

[JRutledge]

mu4scott,

You can break down the video 8 different ways that still does not change my original point on this. It is not clear there was much or any contact. You are looking at the back of the shooter and you do not see how much or if there was any space between the two players. Once again the player seemed to fall straight down, not bouncing off the defender and falling. The official in the video appeared to be in a better position than the video gives us. And to suggest that there has to be foul call on this without a better angle, suggests to me that you have not seen enough plays like this in your career, or you call the game based solely on what something looks like. I tend to not like to guess on plays like this. If I am not sure, I would rather pass on a play than call something completely wrong. And if there was a lot of contact with the defender, the defender would have fallen differently than he did in this video. Players that make hard contact do not fall with their feet relatively in the same place as in this play. So unless you have a different angle, I stand by my original point of view on this and use my experience to decide what I feel should or should not be called. I do not need anyone to convince me otherwise. I break down video all the time and this is not a very good video to make solid and definitive decisions based on what this shows.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No. Look up the rule on incidental contact, particularly the "may be severe" portion.

Incidental contact is not for when determining fault is difficult (as in this case). If you've got a block/charge with severe contact (not necessarily referring to this particular case), it is not incidental....ever. To call a play incidental just because it's hard to tell is a cop out. We've got to make a decision. If we can't see the play and choose not to make a call instead of guessing, that's one thing, but it's not that we've decided that the contact was incidental.

The kind of severe contact that is incidental is, for example, when two players simultaneously and aggressively converge on a loose ball from opposite directions. Big collision, no foul.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For what it's worth, I used "acceptable" because of the poor angle and quality of the video; and because I tend to defer to the judgment of the officials on the court without concrete evidence to the contrary.You gonna call a charge on him just because he gets injured?

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I couldn't disagree with this more. Let's assume for a second that the defender was there in time (which I think he was), and that the defender did not fall backward in anticipation of contact. Let's assume he was not affected at all by contact that the airborne shooter is clearly responsible for.

The frame-by-frame has established that he defender was not there in time. But, for the moment, let's assume he was along with your other criteria. No foul.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You claim you have to have a whistle on any contact with an airborne shooter involved. Who you calling the foul on? Based on what rule?

When the defender is responsible for the contact (as in this case) and the shooter goes down hard, yes. I'm going to have a call on the play in this video...I might be wrong, but that is not one I feel should be passed on.

[Adam]

Camron, I agree with you. I was referring to incidental contact in answer to his question, "With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game?"

Your example of the loose ball scenario is exactly what I was thinking of. How many of us have had two players knock heads going for the ball? Nothing to call, but it looks horrible; especially when only one player is hurt. Other than checking the surviving player for a secret helmet, there's nothing to do but stop play for the injury.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to view the frame by frame here at work (firewalls prevent pictures from coming up from this particular website), so I can't verify one way or the other. I'll agree if the defender was late, a block is warranted. If the defender was on time, a no-call is probably the best option given the flop.

Since it takes frame-by-frame analysis to determine one way or the other, I think a no-call is "acceptable," even if it ends up being wrong.

My biggest point is that, just because a player goes down and gets hurt does not require a whistle. I could come up with countless examples of plays where either, a) neither player is responsible for the contact or b) the disadvantaged (or even injured) player is the one responsible.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You can break down the video 8 different ways that still does not change my original point on this. It is not clear there was much or any contact. You are looking at the back of the shooter and you do not see how much or if there was any space between the two players.

How can you honestly say there was no contact? You can debate the severity, but to say there is none is absurd.

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Camron, I agree with you. I was referring to incidental contact in answer to his question, "With that big of a crash do you think it sets a bad precedent for the rest of the game?"

This is not incidental contact.

Your example of the loose ball scenario is exactly what I was thinking of. How many of us have had two players knock heads going for the ball? Nothing to call, but it looks horrible; especially when only one player is hurt. Other than checking the surviving player for a secret helmet, there's nothing to do but stop play for the injury.

I totally agree.

Unfortunately, I'm not able to view the frame by frame here at work (firewalls prevent pictures from coming up from this particular website), so I can't verify one way or the other. I'll agree if the defender was late, a block is warranted. If the defender was on time, a no-call is probably the best option given the flop.

Going frame by frame you are able to see that the defender was moving.

Since it takes frame-by-frame analysis to determine one way or the other, I think a no-call is "acceptable," even if it ends up being wrong.

My biggest point is that, just because a player goes down and gets hurt does not require a whistle. I could come up with countless examples of plays where either, a) neither player is responsible for the contact or b) the disadvantaged (or even injured) player is the one responsible.

I agree that just because a player is injurerd doesn't mean there has to be a foul. Never said that and never thought that.

[Adam]

Because the camera has a straightline angle and is taken from, what, 90 feet away? If it was HD, you might have solid evidence one way or the other. In the absence of a clear video, my thought is to defer to the official who was standing less than 10 feet away.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Since it takes frame-by-frame analysis to determine one way or the other, I think a no-call is "acceptable," even if it ends up being wrong.

Would you say the same (that a no-call is "acceptable") if the contact was straight on, significant, with no hint of a flop and multiple bodies flying but was so close that it took a frame-by-frame to be sure about who was responsible? I just can't subscribe to no-calling something because it is hard to tell who is responsible if it is clear that some foul should be called (defender was there or they weren't). I'm going to go with my instinct and call something. It may be wrong, but I think its worse for the game to do nothing.