What do you have???

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Camron

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're forgetting the flop here. Billiard balls can't flop, this player did.
.

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

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

We're in 99% agreement, then.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

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.