I think it's in this Duke love fest that somebody posted. To jump to it, go to 0:58.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IPxRNT8RaFU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IPxRNT8RaFU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If the direct physical result was severe, the contact was severe. You can't hit a guy soft and have them fly into the third row....Newton has something to say about that.

Now if the shooter was flying in fast and barely under control and gets a small nudge, the physical result is not due to the nudge, but from the out-of-control actions of the shooter. The contact may stil bel enough for a foul but not enough to upgrade.

I would not call that intentional....a foul, yes....but not intentional.

Without a doubt, a whistle is needed here. The L may have been straightlined but the sudden change of direction/acceleration in mid-air by the offense should have clued the L of contact. The L was beaten down court from the sudden steal. In this case, I would've had just stopped a little below the FT line extended and officiated the play from there.

I just think it looks bad that there's is no whistle by the L on that play but in retrospect, we've all had plays where we had H.U.A.

I think an Intentional is a good call. I see the contact causing the legs to land "in front of" the body (almost an undercut).

Sometimes the "benefit of the doubt" depends on what else is happening in the game (and I didn't see the game, so I can't comment on that).

Even then he may not have seen the contact. He still would have been looking through the back of the defender.

Off-topic: I was searching for an image of the play and found the following...check-out the price on here. And remember "No Refunds":

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com.../uw/72duke.JPG

My first thought Marginal as intentional and it may have been excessive contact...

but then look what the defender does --he takes a quick look at him on the ground (almost a stare and walks away)... Soldifies in my mind he was not (and yes I know I will get beat up for this) a basketball play... Just on that quick look it almost looks like he as trying to punish him and would give me that I would need to make it intentional...

taken in totality above intentional was the right call... If they did not clean that one up, what would have happened with the retaliation on the other end...

IMHO, the official, if any, that should be thanking the Trail is the Center. The Lead is not going to see that, and I don't begrudge him for not having a whistle on this play. The C is looking straight through the play and is the only official out there with any look in regards to the contact that was made on this play.

As far as the severity, again IMHO it looked worse that it was just from the standpoint the kids came crashing down onto the support. If the ever was a case for a game management intentional foul, no matter ones philosophy, here is an example for one in the affirmative.

$6 is '72 is equivalent to $30 in '08.

Duke football now charges $140 for 7 home games in the season tickets package.

In this video with the play in question at the :58s mark, the camera angle does have the L come right into the picture just after the contact. I'm not convinced the L didn't see this, unless the players really beat him down the court.

Yeah, but unfortunately, you may have to actually watch them play! :p

2004, 2-9; 2005, 1-10; 2006, 0-12; 2007, 1-11; 2008, 4-6

You think the L could see the contact by B1's left forearm into A1's back? That was the only contact on the play. B1's right arm (closest to L) hit the rim.

I was able to pause the video at the right spot - the defender turned slightly which I think blocked the L's view. I stand corrected.

The L does appear to be trailing the play, but from his angle, I don't think he would have seen the forearm. But either way, where would he be looking? Probably looking up top for contact on the shooting arm. So he may not see the forearm in the back even if it were visible to him.

I don't see the C anywhere, but I agree that he should have the best look at this.

The T has the advantage of distance, and should be able to see the whole play, including the forearm and the body language afterward.

Saved me the typing..........

An airborne shooter is like a pinata out there.