Words can't describe.... this video.

[CMHCoachNRef]

YouTube - Academy of Holy Angels VS DeLaSalle

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

YouTube - Academy of Holy Angels VS DeLaSalle

From this slo mo shot it looks like a clean block, I have nothing but a bad acting job by shooter. As always, from a grainy video, bad angle and 50 feet away.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

From this slo mo shot it looks like a clean block, I have nothing but a bad acting job by shooter. As always, from a grainy video, bad angle and 50 feet away.

The block looks clean, but I'm not sure whether he was fould prior to landing by the defender who looks like he's moving towards him. It's hard to tell with this angle, but it looked horrible at full speed.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The block looks clean, but I'm not sure whether he was fould prior to landing by the defender who looks like he's moving towards him. It's hard to tell with this angle, but it looked horrible at full speed.

Which proves what we've been saying, a video now slowed down, brings us to another conclusion or at least me. I thought in original he may have been fouled coming back to floor but new video seems that defender is off to side.

Goodness, officials were right there, I trust them. There just isn't enough evidence to say for sure.

The only certainty from any speed, any angle is coach remains an idiot.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

YouTube - Academy of Holy Angels VS DeLaSalle

Based on the angle and the quality of the video, I do not see anything different from what I saw originally. The officials on the game did not call a foul, as far as I am concerned I see nothing that makes this a foul in slow motion.

Peace

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Based on the angle and the quality of the video, I do not see anything different from what I saw originally. The officials on the game did not call a foul, as far as I am concerned I see nothing that makes this a foul in slow motion.

Peace

JRut,
It is the same video clip. Apparently a student from the coach's school created the slower versions of the clip. I think it is EASIER to see the hand on the ball from behind (looks quite clean). It is also easier to see the contact from the front which happened just after the ball was hit by the other defender. I think the lead had a good view of the hand on the ball. He appeared to get so enamored with the clean block (yielding his signal), that he may have missed (I will accept your view that he may have "ignored") the contact by the second defender who got nothing but arm as the ball was already popped loose by the trailing defender.

As Snaqs said, it looked horrible at full speed....

The fact it was a playoff/tournament game would explain why a coach may be more hyped up than normal as their jobs can ride on successful runs in the tournament. Then again, their jobs can also ride on proper behavior all game long as well.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

JRut,
It is the same video clip. Apparently a student from the coach's school created the slower versions of the clip. I think it is EASIER to see the hand on the ball from behind (looks quite clean). It is also easier to see the contact from the front which happened just after the ball was hit by the other defender. I think the lead had a good view of the hand on the ball. He appeared to get so enamored with the clean block (yielding his signal), that he may have missed (I will accept your view that he may have "ignored") the contact by the second defender who got nothing but arm as the ball was already popped loose by the trailing defender.

Duuuuhhhh!!!! Of course it is the same video but slowed down.

I am also of the contention, contact is not a foul. It must put someone at an advantage or a disadvantage. You have a player falling to the ground because the ball is taken out of his hands, not because someone contacted him after the fact. I do not know anyone that would advocate this being a foul by any evaluator that I have come in contact with. Either the blocking action was a foul or it was not a foul. Nothing else was illegal here and not simple contact does not mean a foul was committed.

Peace

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Duuuuhhhh!!!! Of course it is the same video but slowed down.

I am also of the contention, contact is not a foul. It must put someone at an advantage or a disadvantage. You have a player falling to the ground because the ball is taken out of his hands, not because someone contacted him after the fact. I do not know anyone that would advocate this being a foul by any evaluator that I have come in contact with. Either the blocking action was a foul or it was not a foul. Nothing else was illegal here and not simple contact does not mean a foul was committed.

Peace

Question for you. I think I know the answer based on your replies up to this point, but answer this, please.

A5 goes up for a shot in the lane. B5 goes up and cleanly blocks the shot with his hand and there is a minimal amount of body contact. Meanwhile, B4 has come over to help. He also jumps to block the shot and comes down on top of A5 knocking him down. Are you calling the foul on B4 for contact on the airborne shooter or are you ignoring the contact as simple non-advantageous contact since B5 had already blocked the shot prior to B4's contact?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Question for you. I think I know the answer based on your replies up to this point, but answer this, please.

A5 goes up for a shot in the lane. B5 goes up and cleanly blocks the shot with his hand and there is a minimal amount of body contact. Meanwhile, B4 has come over to help. He also jumps to block the shot and comes down on top of A5 knocking him down. Are you calling the foul on B4 for contact on the airborne shooter or are you ignoring the contact as simple non-advantageous contact since B5 had already blocked the shot prior to B4's contact?

I'm calling it based on the part I highlighted.

From the video, however, it's hazy enough you can't tell whether the second defender fouled the shooter, or whether he got knocked down by the momentum of the ball being stripped.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm calling it based on the part I highlighted.

Agree fwiw in that particular situation that the coach detailed. You haveta protect the airborne shooter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Question for you. I think I know the answer based on your replies up to this point, but answer this, please.

A5 goes up for a shot in the lane. B5 goes up and cleanly blocks the shot with his hand and there is a minimal amount of body contact. Meanwhile, B4 has come over to help. He also jumps to block the shot and comes down on top of A5 knocking him down. Are you calling the foul on B4 for contact on the airborne shooter or are you ignoring the contact as simple non-advantageous contact since B5 had already blocked the shot prior to B4's contact?

He better knock him out. If a player is already falling, they are not going to get a foul from me (or any respectable official I know) just because there was some contact.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

I think it is EASIER to see the hand on the ball from behind (looks quite clean). It is also easier to see the contact from the front which happened just after the ball was hit by the other defender. I think the lead had a good view of the hand on the ball. He appeared to get so enamored with the clean block (yielding his signal), that he may have missed (I will accept your view that he may have "ignored") the contact by the second defender who got nothing but arm as the ball was already popped loose by the trailing defender.

Imo the L didn't ignore anything. He correctly ruled the subsequent contact as being incidental during a loose ball. There was no advantage gained or lost by that contact that i could see. I agree completely with Jeff's take on the play.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Imo the L didn't ignore anything. He correctly ruled the subsequent contact as being incidental during a loose ball. There was no advantage gained or lost by that contact that i could see. I agree completely with Jeff's take on the play.

JR,
Just for the record, and you will be surprised to here this, but I don't think a foul should have been called on this play, either. but it sure is fun to argue.

I have also clearly moved the discussion away from the true issue. I did not come close to acting like that toward officials even when I was very young. I would NEVER come close to physical contact with players like that. His actions were far over the line, as everyone, well almost everyone, agrees.

I am also far too competitive to manage to pick up that second technical foul. With a three point deficit and still over 10 seconds remaining, I would have kept my mouth shut. A missed FT and I have any opportunity to tie it. Then again, I likely would have been ahead since I would not have earned the first T either.

[Adam]

I don't think many adults who actually have to answer to someone would act like this knucklehead acted. It's apparent from the resolution of this that he doesn't really answer to anyone.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

JR,
I have also clearly moved the discussion away from the true issue. I did not come close to acting like that toward officials even when I was very young. I would NEVER come close to physical contact with players like that. His actions were far over the line, as everyone, well almost everyone, agrees.

I am also far too competitive to manage to pick up that second technical foul. With a three point deficit and still over 10 seconds remaining, I would have kept my mouth shut. A missed FT and I have any opportunity to tie it. Then again, I likely would have been ahead since I would not have earned the first T either.

And I think that most officials who have been around for a while realize that there are technical fouls and there are technical fouls.

There's the run-of-the-mill "T"s that you give out in the course of a game to a coach that thinks that you just missed one....or a few. That's just another call....ho-hum....git 'er done and move on...and we both forget about it. And I don't have a problem with a coach testing me to see where my line is either....as long as the coach is smart enough to back off when he finds out. There is a proper way to lobby for your team and most experienced coaches know the procedure...and most experienced officials recognize that procedure.

But there is a few (emphasis on few) coaches that do try to gain an edge through intimidation. And they'll pick their spots also, which is why the coach in the video went after the young 'un on the other side. When I read nonsense from his sycophants like "his players feed off that energy" and "he can turn his anger off like a light bulb". then I know that particular coach is definitely in this category. That coach has made intimidation a large part of his coaching modus operandi. And I don't think that it makes him an idiot. I do think that it makes him a person who shouldn't be allowed to coach anybody outside the NBA, and especially not impressionable teenagers. It's wrong...and it's sad. And what is even sadder is that you have a school administration that not only lets this person get away with such unsporting behavior but also seems to encourage it. And what is truly sad is that his followers are quite willing to spread his gospel also. It's all in the quest for their Holy Grail--a win.

One bad official who doesn't know the rules or how to apply them doesn't mean that the great majority of us aren't dedicated to trying to do the best job that we possibly can when we step out on the court. And similarly, one person like this Thorson sureashell doesn't mean the the great majority of amateur coaches aren't trying their damndest to not only teach playing skills but to teach life skills. Iow, in regard to both coaches and officials, you have to judge each individual in each category individually.

JMO, Coach.