Was it a foul, or not?

[deecee]

The reason this no call is huge is that it DECIDED the outcome of the game.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by deecee

The reason this no call is huge is that it DECIDED the outcome of the game.

Dude: smiley, blue font -- something?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by deecee

The reason this no call is huge is that it DECIDED the outcome of the game.

There's the fallacy. When you look at it in total, the truth is, every call can decide the outcome of the game, especially in a close game.

Let's say a ruling like this took place within the first three quarters. Those are points a team can never get back, and that situation will affect the score at the end. While Nevada points out that players can "overcome" it, can they really? All they can do is move on and keep playing, and all we can do is move on and keep officiating, but players will never get those points back on that incorrectly called play. Errors will indeed happen, but don't con yourself into believing that they only matter in the end.

Just because people don't remember a (non-)call, doesn't mean it isn't what it is. A game is always decided in 32, 40, or 48 minutes, never just one.

(Aside to Jurassic: +1)

[bradfordwilkins]

Let's talk about the play from a learning perspective.

There are three things I notice in the play:

1) The slot gets completely straightlined --

2) His partner in the TRAIL needs to identify this and step down into the play more to get a cleaner look at the shooting arm that the slot normally would pick up.

3) Kevin Durant is one of the most prolific shooters in the league and the ball comes up 5 feet short -- even if you are "unsure" of whether there was illegal contact or not because of your angle, you can come in a little late and pick that up by watching the trajectory of the ball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Let's talk about the play from a learning perspective.

There are three things I notice in the play:

1) The slot gets completely straightlined --

2) His partner in the Lead needs to identify this and step down into the play more to get a cleaner look at the shooting arm that the slot normally would pick up.

3) Kevin Durant is one of the most prolific shooters in the league and the ball comes up 5 feet short -- even if you are "unsure" of whether there was illegal contact or not because of your angle, you can come in a little late and pick that up by watching the trajectory of the ball.

#3 is completely rediculous. Contact could have been on the ball or hand. If you don't see it, don't guess.

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

#3 is completely rediculous. Contact could have been on the ball or hand. If you don't see it, don't guess.

I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about this play (and similar ones) where from the lead you can see no contact on the ball or hand but questionable contact on the forearm... When you see someone who shoots well have a shot come up 5 feet short, its a good indicator of illegal contact.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about this play (and similar ones) where from the lead you can see no contact on the ball or hand but questionable contact on the forearm... When you see someone who shoots well have a shot come up 5 feet short, its a good indicator of illegal contact.

I guess I'm at a loss to think of how you could see definitively there's no contact on the ball or hand if you can't tell whether there's contact on the arm. If you see definitively that there's contact on the forearm and it affects the shot, by all means get it; but you're not guessing. If anything, that calls for a patient whistle.

Are you saying you're sure there was contact, but need to determine if it was illegal? If that's the case, your angle really has nothing to do with it.

[KMBReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I guess I'm at a loss to think of how you could see definitively there's no contact on the ball or hand if you can't tell whether there's contact on the arm. If you see definitively that there's contact on the forearm and it affects the shot, by all means get it; but you're not guessing. If anything, that calls for a patient whistle.

That's the problem I had with the entire play. If you need a zoom-in replay to tell definitively whether contact was made, and WHERE it was made (and in this case, the replay still isn't conclusive), then can you really call that a foul?

And should the NBA front office step in and make such a statement on such a close visual call in the first place?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I guess I'm at a loss to think of how you could see definitively there's no contact on the ball or hand if you can't tell whether there's contact on the arm. If you see definitively that there's contact on the forearm and it affects the shot, by all means get it; but you're not guessing. If anything, that calls for a patient whistle.

Are you saying you're sure there was contact, but need to determine if it was illegal? If that's the case, your angle really has nothing to do with it.

I know what he's trying to say.

It is very possible that an official can definitively see that there was no contact in one spot because there was nothing near that spot (hand/ball) but you could see that the defender's hand was near the elbow but couldn't directly tell if they hit it or not---another player blocked your view of the elbow at the last moment. However, you could, to a great accuracy, tell whether there was contact or not from the effects of the possible hit....the arm twitching sideways in an unnatural way or the ball leaving the hand in an abnormal way.

[tref]

I am NOT going fishing in anothers pond for "questionable contact" when theres a capable official right on top of the play.

I follow the 3 Bs when expanding my PCA:
1. Be late
2. Be needed
3. Be right

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by tref

I am NOT going fishing in anothers pond for "questionable contact" when theres a capable official right on top of the play.

I follow the 3 Bs when expanding my PCA:
1. Be late
2. Be needed
3. Be right

I like the three B's.

Yikes I'm tired - meant this whole conversation to be about the Trail... Lead stays the hell out of this play haha.

I'm saying as the trail to have awareness of being "needed" because of the slot/center being straightlined

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about this play (and similar ones) where from the lead you can see no contact on the ball or hand but questionable contact on the forearm... When you see someone who shoots well have a shot come up 5 feet short, its a good indicator of illegal contact.

It's also a good indicator of a partially blocked shot. You only call what you're sure of at any level. You're guessing if you try to go by indicators.


Always call what you know, not what you think you know. If you're unsure, swallow your whistle.

[Tio]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

I'm talking SPECIFICALLY about this play (and similar ones) where from the lead you can see no contact on the ball or hand but questionable contact on the forearm... When you see someone who shoots well have a shot come up 5 feet short, its a good indicator of illegal contact.

Defensive challenges on these plays can be hard to officiate. Often, the official with primary coverage is in bad position or caught up in another aspect of the play...feet, body contact, etc. The contact to affect a jump shot is usually subtle. as Bradford pointed out, Kevin Durant doesn't airball that shot without contact... However, we can't guess or assume the player missed because of a foul.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Tio

However, we can't guess or assume the player missed because of a foul.

Speak for yourself, I guess every time I blow the whistle.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

#3 is completely rediculous. Contact could have been on the ball or hand. If you don't see it, don't guess.

You have just received a citation from the Spelling Police.