Poll: What do you have?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Well this thread went down the toilet pretty quick.

Maybe we should have a poll to find out whose fault it was......

[mu4scott]

Originally Posted by Mwanr1

The truth is that most of us here agree that there's a blocking foul (and probably a traveling) except for you and a few others.

I can't speak for others, but I truthfully care less about the level that you work in and the experience that you have accomplished. Most of us here share one thing in common and that is to utilize this forum as a learning tool among each other. Don't throw the "I'm a veteran official and my experience of seeing see bang/bang plays and I'm RIGHT ALL THE TIME " crap at us and expect we'll learn from it.

The fact that you spend countless hours on this forum doesn't make you any better or more knowledgeable than any one of us here. You are arrogant and I'm sure it's not just me that seems to think so.

(My hand is in the air)

[Adam]

Mr. Kettle, you might want to take your hand down.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Maybe we should have a poll to find out whose fault it was......

Maybe we should take a poll on who is tired of polls.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have to say I'm surprised at how many feel it's a block. Should have added a 4th option: Unable to tell by video.

My concern is that too many think it's a block for the wrong reasons; "He wasn't set," "he hadn't stopped," etc.

If you don't think he established LGP in time, or that he broke LGP by moving into the shooter, fair enough.

Since I watched the initial video probably a dozen times and still couldn't come up with a clear, obvious call, ultimately going with a block just based on experience and instinct, I would not surprised at a fairly even mix of charges vs. blocks from the video alone.

However, I am quite surprised, after the breakdown of the frame-by-frame, that any one still thinks it could be a charge. The frame-by-frame unequivocally shows that the defender was still moving into the shooter's path at least 2 frames after the shooter was airborne. Given that, it can't possibly be a charge. The only counter to it is to wish the video was HDTV quality...but it was, as grainy as it was, sufficient to see what needed to be seen.

[Adam]

Camron, the frame by frame may be clear to some, but it's not to others (including me). It's clear that you and I (and most others here) agree on what it would be if the variables are locked down. I've just seen (and heard during games) too many people say, "He wasn't set," or "he was moving." I've seen it on here, too.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Now I have not read anywhere of someone saying which was the pivot foot or what they thought was the pivot foot on the tape. All I hear is, "That has to be a travel" rather than the specifics of why the play was illegal.

When you lift one foot, then return it to the floor, then lift the other foot, then return it to the floor, all while holding the ball firmly in both hands, it doesn't matter which foot was the pivot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When you lift one foot, then return it to the floor, then lift the other foot, then return it to the floor, all while holding the ball firmly in both hands, it doesn't matter which foot was the pivot.

When did the dribble end? When was the pivot foot established? All that stuff matters. And it is really hard to tell anything when a player has their back to you the camera and you cannot tell when the player shot the ball and when the other foot touched or did not touch. That was even harder to tell than whether there was contact on the other end.

Let us stop talking about this; we are not going to agree. And I am not really concerned about a travel that was not called and did not seem to matter in this game or even to the person that posted the video.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

When you lift one foot, then return it to the floor, then lift the other foot, then return it to the floor, all while holding the ball firmly in both hands, it doesn't matter which foot was the pivot.

The point was that you can't tell from the video whether the ball was being fumbled because the player's back was to the camera. If it was being fumbled, there was no pivot foot and therefore no travel.

The point made was completely legitimate. It is also not germane to this stoopid poll anyway.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The point made was completely legitimate. It is also not germane to this stoopid poll anyway.

Now I want to know how you voted!

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Now I want to know how you voted!

He didn't. You can see everybody's vote by clicking one of the numbers in the results.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Now I want to know how you voted!

I agreed with Scrappy's take way back in the other thread....oh, about 4/5 days ago. After that----> paralysis through analysis.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

He didn't. You can see everybody's vote by clicking one of the numbers in the results.

I think we've all figured out JR enough to know that he didn't vote. Even though I don't expect him to, I had to egg him on a bit to vote.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The point was that you can't tell from the video whether the ball was being fumbled because the player's back was to the camera.

No, the point was that the travel I describe is after the dribble, as the player turns toward the camera. When he picks up his dribble, he is right on the edge of the lane. When he puts up the shot, he is close to the center of the lane. Hard to blame the guy for working on this move. You see it on tv all the time with no whistle.

[JRutledge]

It is really telling that you have to describe the play, instead of it jumping out at everyone to where they know which play you are talking about. And it is telling that you talk about what happens on TV rather than describe what actually was illegal about the play.

Peace