What do you have???

[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

[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.

[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

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.

As blurry and bad as the video quality is, it is more than adequate, when viewed frame-by-frame, to establish that the defender was moving sideways after the shooter jumped. No HD needed. Regardless of the resolution, motion relative to fixed points on the wall/bleachers is pretty visible.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

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

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

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

"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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

"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).

Peace

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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).

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

..... it is clear to me you either do you have the experience of seeing this kind of play.....

It is clear you must not be able to read very well if you cannot see my point of view very well.

That clears it up for all of us.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by 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

I understand your comment about the defender falling as he did. Now what about the offensive player falling as he did? He can't magically check his hips out like that without some opposing force pushing on them. visual cues can aid you greatly in accuracy in play calling and this is one of those visual cues.

secondly I would like to ask the question why are you still talking about the defender and how he landed? i like that you used another visual cue here and it does look like he flops a little, but the defender is no longer our sole problem once the kid is airborne. we have to first determine if the defender is legal or illegal. In this case I would say most ppl have said he was illegal and with that being the case we now have to see if his illegal movement or positioning and subsequent contact, whether it be slight or not, hindered the offensive player from completing a natural basketball play or movement? If you take that criterion and still say no to it then fine I'm ok with that, but I believe you would be wrong in just saying that it was minimal contact and on that basis alone you don't have a foul for that reason, solely.

I would like to say this is my opinion, but under the assumption that the said player is illegal then he is what he is, illegal! Therefore, barring any overt move by the offensive player, the onus is on the defender to be legal and any subsequent contact hindering a player from completing a natural, athletic basketball move or play should be deemed a foul.

sidenote: if this offensive player lands straight on his feet or iow completing his move and in my judgement he was not hindered by this contact, then I would no call this play. At the same time if he lands on his feet and i feel he was unable to complete his move I would still have a whistle.

Gotta love this job! Not always so black and white!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I understand your comment about the defender falling as he did. Now what about the offensive player falling as he did? He can't magically check his hips out like that without some opposing force pushing on them. visual cues can aid you greatly in accuracy in play calling and this is one of those visual cues.

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.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

secondly I would like to ask the question why are you still talking about the defender and how he landed? i like that you used another visual cue here and it does look like he flops a little, but the defender is no longer our sole problem once the kid is airborne. we have to first determine if the defender is legal or illegal. In this case I would say most ppl have said he was illegal and with that being the case we now have to see if his illegal movement or positioning and subsequent contact, whether it be slight or not, hindered the offensive player from completing a natural basketball play or movement? If you take that criterion and still say no to it then fine I'm ok with that, but I believe you would be wrong in just saying that it was minimal contact and on that basis alone you don't have a foul for that reason, solely.

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.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I would like to say this is my opinion, but under the assumption that the said player is illegal then he is what he is, illegal! Therefore, barring any overt move by the offensive player, the onus is on the defender to be legal and any subsequent contact hindering a player from completing a natural, athletic basketball move or play should be deemed a foul.

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.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

sidenote: if this offensive player lands straight on his feet or iow completing his move and in my judgement he was not hindered by this contact, then I would no call this play. At the same time if he lands on his feet and i feel he was unable to complete his move I would still have a whistle.

Gotta love this job! Not always so black and white!

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

[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 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.