What do you have???

[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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Greg Louganis.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Greg Louganis.

That's just wrong.

Funny, but wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Greg Louganis.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

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

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

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

Yeah, he showed a complete lack of professionalism.

[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!

[CoachP]

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.

[Adam]

I agree completely with Coach P.

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

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mu4scott

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mu4scott

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

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

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.


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?