Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 670578)

And that would be a terrible call. Period.

Originally Posted by BBall_Junkie (Post 670583)

Three periods in a row. You must have this confused with the hockey forum. We discuss basketball here. :D

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 670509)

Make it 12. I should have restrained from voting until after this discussion progressed. When I first watched the video, it seemed as though the back of the forearm got the defender moreso than an elbow.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 670588)

And that would have made a difference?

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 670591)

First few viewings it looked like he barely got him with the back of his forearm/defender made a show. Had to watch it a couple dozen times to be convinced the video showed actual contact to the defender.

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach (Post 670543)

What would be a common foul that I'm ignoring because the ball is dead due to the traveling violation.

Originally Posted by amusedofficial (Post 670602)

Not in a million years do I waive off the foul because the act of committing it included illegal pivot foot movement. I don't think I would have spotted the travel, since something like a deliberate elbow to the face kind of draws my attention way from a "sliding" pivot foot -- and while I couldn't be sure without being there I think this guy knew what he was doing when he locked, loaded and fired..

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 670600)

And Lah me.....

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 670721)

:confused:

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 670736)

Here, allow me: I speak Jurassic.

JR is quoting the esteemed Carl Childress, who coined the expression "Lah me" to express something like the thought, "I thought I was right to agree with the rest of the world on this point, but perhaps you're right -- or at any rate, further efforts to convince you are unlikely to be worth the effort."
...

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 670736)

Here, allow me: I speak Jurassic.

JR is quoting the esteemed Carl Childress, who coined the expression "Lah me" to express something like the thought, "I thought I was right to agree with the rest of the world on this point, but perhaps you're right -- or at any rate, further efforts to convince you are unlikely to be worth the effort."

In context, I believe that JR was expressing surprise that any actual official would require more than one exposure to the OP's video before concluding that the play involved at least a PC foul.

Originally Posted by DLH17 (Post 670744)

Silly, oh silly me. What am I thinking going up against that stalwart and his pithy, shorthand posting skills?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 670763)

Pith on you too. :D

Originally Posted by mbyron (Post 670736)

JR is quoting the esteemed Carl Childress, who coined the expression "Lah me" to express something like the thought, "I thought I was right to agree with the rest of the world on this point, but perhaps you're right -- or at any rate, further efforts to convince you are unlikely to be worth the effort."

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 670766)

Correctly translated. Other esteemed members have been known to use the phrase also.

Originally Posted by bwstudentref (Post 670845)

Should the ref on the baseline at the end of the video, be standing inside the player.

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 670860)

Referees should never stand on the baseline. They could get run over by a player trying to leg out a drag bunt.

Originally Posted by richmsn (Post 670863)

ugh.

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 670863)

Ugh.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 670207)

I will warn a player to let him know that his behavior borders on needing to be penalized. Mostly my warnings deal with unsporting acts and don't involve contact.
I try to refrain from warning a player about violations or fouls. I simply blow the whistle.

I don't see how one could give a warning regarding a flagrant foul. It either is flagrant when committed or it isn't. I would never call an intentional foul in the first half on a player and warn him that the next one would be flagrant. That just isn't right. Each offense must be judged on its own.

If both fouls meet the threshold for intentional, but not flagrant, then the official should penalize both of them as intentionals.

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 670578)

And that would be a terrible call. Period.

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach (Post 683972)

Nope, you're wrong. . . . . . . . . .

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 683979)

Did it take you 3+ months to come to that conclusion? I believe in patient whistles, but that's ridiculous. :D