I'm good with that, JR. Simple question, (not so) simple answer....but an answer just the same.

Uh, what is so different about the my quote from above and what JR said that you quoted?

I think both of us said it was a foul and we would have to determine if it was flagrant or not.

Your response to me said my opinion was subjective and your response to JR was you are good with that. Hmmmmm. Old School?

I'm good with JR's because he just gave his opinion and moved on.

Not sure what "old school" means.

This forum is whacky in a way, though, because discussing stuff here with other officials is so much different than sitting down during pre-game or halftime with a crew to discuss/analyze situations.

And I didn't move on because I hurt your feelings earlier so that equates to me not moving on. You didn't answer before so I will try again, do you officiate basketball?

Your earlier posts questioning the legitimacy of the foul made no mention of travelling as a mitigating factor. You spoke about aggressiveness and space.

You are right. And, to that end, I say it's not a flagrant foul if at all. Upon looking at it more today I can see the back of the arm contact the defender knocking him backwards.

A new perspective, though, in this case BOFARMA, called attention to the pivot foot of the offensive player. I admit to getting caught up in the action up high and not even looking at the player's pivot. Once brought to my attention, it looks as though the offensive player traveled before he pivoted and "threw the elbow" at the defender's face.

Summary....I do not have a flagrant foul and it looks as if there was a traveling violation before anything else happened anyway.

You do know what happens when one assumes?

My feelings are not hurt. I'm only trying to break down the situation on video while dodging attitude from a fellow official. Subjectivity and humility are actually good qualities - even on this forum.

I'm not here to tell you what you should have on this play, rather, offer an opinion and discuss. Being right or wrong in your eyes isn't important...becoming a better official for having analyzed this, asking questions and reading a wide variety of responses is important.

Maybe that's how someone "develops".

+1

Respectful dialogue is good...it is how we understand differences (of opinion, race, gender, height, weight, etc...).

Thankfully we ALL don't think or look the same! :D

Can you imagine if we ALL looked like Sanqwells and thought like Jurassic???:eek:

What a hoot the board would be then!:D

Yes, it is easy to mention subjectivity and humility on the back end and get someone (Da Official) on your side. However, prior to that, several regulars asked you about your perspective and you kept trying to reason that there shouldn't be a foul. Even your recent response to BNR started off with "You are right" and continued on to rationalize a travel that hasn't really been part of the discussion. It makes you seem sort of like a "Yeah but" official.

But hey, if you want to focus in on what you think is an attitude from me and tell me how I should behave on a forum, knock yourself out.

A few things:

1. Beginning now, I will check with you via PM regarding appropriate timing with introducing givens like "humility" and "subjectivity" into my posts.
2. Yes, I intentionally "argued" against the PC foul conclusion. Sometimes it's more fun and makes for a better discussion to challenge a widely held opinion as opposed to back patting and encouraging the prevailing take.
3. Rationalizing a travel? No. In fact, I acknowledged BO's post that brought the possibility to light and admitted that it never occurred to me. The real question is, why are you and everyone else avoiding that being a part of the play clearly shown on the video clip?
4. My discussion style here may or may not define what type of official I may or may not be. Please explain how asking and challenging discussion of this video clip defines me as an official. Thank you.

5. This isn't about you.

When did we start agreeing all the time?? The last paragraph of this could not be said any better. Maybe my experience is finally showing off??? hahaha!

Shots to the head as I have stated in a fairly recent post are plays that cause coaches and even more importantly, players to become absolutely volatile! One missed head shot can cause your game to go in the tank in a heartbeat! I would take heat from a coach all day after calling that play an offensive foul, bc I would not doubt myself for one second calling it!

I believe deeming this play a flagrant or not is dependent on the situation. If he has been putting lots of crap in your game previously, I would have no reservation dumping him. If this is just an isolated incident or he hasn't absolutely proven himself to be a game interrupter then I will lean toward not ejecting him.

A travel call here, IMO, is a weak call.

There. I've said it. I think finding/calling a travel here and ignoring the elbow is a great way to avoid sacking up and making a tough call.

Those who advocate a travel here -- is it safe to assume you do NOT advocate now penalizing the dead ball contact as a technical foul?

And frankly, I've watched it about 5 times just now and I just don't see a blatant travel, if one is there at all. I see an elbow clocking a defender in the face, though.

+1

You'll also see this same kind of thinking on the catch and crash plays where there's always a travel call (whether there or not) instead of a block/charge call.

And going with the travel call, you're still going to have to make a call on the elbow except now we've upgraded it to a technical foul.

Actually, I think this is taking that line of thinking and stepping it up a notch or six.

Frequently on the catch, travel, crash play, the player with the ball is surprised and legitimately does travel prior to contact. I've called this myself when there's no doubt it's a travel. Of course, the crash isn't borderline flagrant like this elbow, either and there's no need to reach in and get a technical foul on the dead ball contact.

I just don't know if this player legitimately traveled. I mean, going back to a replay and watching it 5-6 times looking for a microscopic slide of the pivot foot just doesn't seem to be within the spirit of, well, anything.