![]() |
Quote:
I can explain a no-call on this play much more easily than on the video play. |
Quote:
Peace |
I'm jumping in late on this one, but I've looked at the video several times, and I don't think this play is close. It's an illegal screen, not because the contact was severe, not because the game was tied or coach will be upset if I call it/don't call it. It's an illegal screen because it was an attempt to screen a moving defender, and the screener did not give the required time and distance (a minimum of one step) when the screen was set. Just my $.02.
|
Quote:
I do care whether I can explain a call or a no call to a coach. I expect any official to be able to communicate why he did or did not call a foul or violation if the coach approaches us in a professional manner. |
Quote:
Better get this engraved as well! |
Quote:
Jrut... I'm talking about this play and no other. I don't give a crap what a coach thinks, but at the level I'm at and the level I'm striving to be at I had better be able to explain what I called. If not to the coach then to the assignor or commisioner of the conference. I wouldn't want to explain a no call or intentional in this situation. |
Quote:
-Josh |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If we pass on FOULS, we are picking and choosing which rules to enforce. |
Quote:
-Josh |
Quote:
It came out in 1988. |
Quote:
If it didn't hinder the defender, it wasn't illegal and it shouldn't be called. It's not about passing on marginal contact. When there is contact, you need to decide three things. 1. Who is responsible. (A1, B1, or neither.) 2. Who is negatively affected by the play? (A1, B1, or neither.) If the answer to either question is "neither," then it's not a foul regardless of the severity. If the answer to both questions is the same player/team, then it's not a foul. The only way it's a foul is if the player responsible is not on the same team as the player negatively affected by the contact. |
Quote:
Peace |
Okay, just to clarify some things. I agree this particular play is (at least) a personal foul on A2. That's an easy call, IMO. I can't tell from the angle, however, if A2 raised her arms into B1. It sure looks like it's possible, and if she did that on a blind screen, the severity of the contact absolutely makes an intentional foul valid by rule. It's a judgment call.
Game management comes into play in determining whether this play should be intentional or not, IMO. The term "game management" is being used here, and I've mocked it to an extent but also said it's a real thing. I should explain. You absolutely cannot determine how GM should come into play with just this one play; you need to see the whole game, probably from the court with the referees' perspectives. If A2 has been getting rough, or anyone for that matter, a righteous intentional foul might be a good thing to settle things down. If this is the first sign of trouble, a standard personal foul would probably suffice. Again, remember, by rule, an intentional foul can be called if the contact is severe enough; even if it doesn't match the other requirements. Think of a shooter going up for a shot and getting clobbered and run over by B1 trying to block the shot. If we're going to protect an airborne shooter expecting to get challenged, why won't we protect a defender on an illegal blind screen? To claim it's bad GM to call this intentional without seeing the rest of the game is just, well, um, well.... I disagree. |
Quote:
Someone that knows basketball isn't going to want to hear, "Because it was hard and someone could get hurt." Tell them to play chess. On this play, "she leaned into her" is sufficient to call the foul and all the other stuff is just going to get you into trouble with an evaluator; IMHO, of course. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34am. |