What do you have???

[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.