Bilas

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by fiasco

You're right, this is a textbook case play.

The screener does not give time and distance upon being set (for the final time).

The screener leans into the opponent's path.

Illegal screen.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

Let me add a "me too," although I have merely a math degree.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

Stationary is the key word. In the still photo the guy is at least 20 degrees away from vertical. He leaned into the contact, then also lifted his forearm at the point of impact. Subtle, perhaps, and size was a big factor in the play, but in my eyes, this guy delivered a blow.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

In regards to the rules, it doesn't matter how bad the impact was.

I have demonstrated, based on the video and the screen shot and the rules, how it was illegal.

Can you demonstrate how it was legal?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

In regards to the rules, it doesn't matter how bad the impact was.

I have demonstrated, based on the video and the screen shot and the rules, how it was illegal.

Can you demonstrate how it was legal?

1) It's not a blind screen.

2) Although not 90* to the floor, I'm not sure that the player fails the verticality test (but it's close).

As a practical matter, some leeway is given in determining the angle that still meets the "verticality" standard.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Fiasco:

When I watch this play as an engineer I see an inelastic collision between stationary object of large mass and a small mass moving at a high rate of velocity.

When I watch this play as a basketball official I see G2 setting a legal screen against B1. Once again, this is a casebook play for a legal screen. Yes, B1 went down hard, but that is the result of an inelastic collision (see the above paragraph). Normally, I will not question a fellow official's judgement, but I will make exceptions for guarding/screening (block/charge) situations. I am sorry but this is a legal screen and there is not any defense to call it anything but a legal screen.

MTD, Sr.

Ah, the last rhetorical refuge of any desperate litigant. Sometimes referred to as "petitio principii," or "begging the question," it is more commonly known as the "Because I said so" fallacy.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Ah, the last rhetorical refuge of any desperate litigant. Sometimes referred to as "petitio principii," or "begging the question," it is more commonly known as the "Because I said so" fallacy.

Counselor:

I say so because G2 met all of the requirements of the definition of screening. Furthermore, the late Ed Ferrigno, a former member of the NFHS Rules Committee and State Interpreter for Connecticut was probably the most knowledgeable person regarding guarding/screening in the country and I helped him give seminars on block/charge, so I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about guarding and screening too. So when I say that G2 set a legal screen you can pretty well take it to the bank.

MTD, Sr.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Counselor:

I say so because G2 met all of the requirements of the definition of screening. Furthermore, the late Ed Ferrigno, a former member of the NFHS Rules Committee and State Interpreter for Connecticut was probably the most knowledgeable person regarding guarding/screening in the country and I helped him give seminars on block/charge, so I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about guarding and screening too. So when I say that G2 set a legal screen you can pretty well take it to the bank.

MTD, Sr.

Look, I'm not trying to get into a ****ing match here. I just think it's interesting that you made your argument--an argument that some found compelling, some not so much--and then when you didn't convince everybody, you begged the question.

And now you've committed another fallacy, the appeal to authority. It's a mighty fancy appeal to be sure, but one that is nevertheless lacking in argumentative force.

To this observer, it seems clear that reasonable people can disagree on the play. You may reject that notion (and you may even be correct), but fallacious arguments don't help anyone get anywhere.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Look, I'm not trying to get into a ****ing match here. I just think it's interesting that you made your argument--an argument that some found compelling, some not so much--and then when you didn't convince everybody, you begged the question.

And now you've committed another fallacy, the appeal to authority. It's a mighty fancy appeal to be sure, but one that is nevertheless lacking in argumentative force.

To this observer, it seems clear that reasonable people can disagree on the play. You may reject that notion (and you may even be correct), but fallacious arguments don't help anyone get anywhere.

The appeal to authority fallacy assumes that everyone's opinion is equal. This is another fallacy, probably the biggest one of this thread. I will take Bob Jenkins and MTD's opinion over just about anyone's here.

[jbduke]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

The appeal to authority fallacy assumes that everyone's opinion is equal. This is another fallacy, probably the biggest one of this thread. I will take Bob Jenkins and MTD's opinion over just about anyone's here.

On the contrary. The appeal to authority fallacy tells us that it is the opinion, per se, not the holder of the opinion, that is important. Of course some opinions are going to be more informed than others, but we shouldn't give an opinion 'informed' status just because of who utters it. In other words, whether Bob or MTD happens to be correct is completely independent of Bob and MTD themselves. It is the idea that is important, not he who propagates it.

Again, agree or disagree with those deemed 'expert,' but don't do it because of a label or attribution. Do it on the merits of the case.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jbduke

On the contrary. The appeal to authority fallacy tells us that it is the opinion, per se, not the holder of the opinion, that is important. Of course some opinions are going to be more informed than others, but we shouldn't give an opinion 'informed' status just because of who utters it. In other words, whether Bob or MTD happens to be correct is completely independent of Bob and MTD themselves. It is the idea that is important, not he who propagates it.

Again, agree or disagree with those deemed 'expert,' but don't do it because of a label or attribution. Do it on the merits of the case.

When we're talking black and white, yes, the merit of the case is pretty straightforward. Officiating, OTOH, is a series of various shades of gray. Because of this, the opinions given have to always be linked with the person making them and their authority, experience, etc. Sometimes authority is granted to a specific person (an assignor, commissioner, supervisor, etc.) and other times it's based on other, less tangible factors, such as reputation and experience.

I look at this play and I prefer to put myself in the position of the official making the call, real-time. The screener is relatively stationary, certainly so compared with the player who bounces off of him. Is a small lean (and whether the screener is not vertical for the purpose of the POV is debatable, even by the experienced people here) forward to me enough to pass responsibility on the contact to the screener? No. I would be happy to argue that this was mainly done to absorb contact. If this was a block/charge situation, I'd call it a charge/PCF in a heartbeat.

(I've worked with Bob and I know both of the gentlemen's resumes and knowledge and to say that carries no weight is a bit ridiculous, IMO.)

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by jbduke

Look, I'm not trying to get into a ****ing match here. I just think it's interesting that you made your argument--an argument that some found compelling, some not so much--and then when you didn't convince everybody, you begged the question.

And now you've committed another fallacy, the appeal to authority. It's a mighty fancy appeal to be sure, but one that is nevertheless lacking in argumentative force.

Well, if you are going to jump into accusations of fallacies, you should make sure you understand them completely.

There is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority, and that is not a logical fallacy.

The fallacy is a False appeal to authority, where either the authority in question is not an authority, or there is no agreement amongst authorities about the issue.

Lets go to the rulebook!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...authority.html

Well, A rulebook anyway.

Of course, some might say that referencing a source is a appeal to authority!