Storm vs. Liberty - Last Night
 

Did anyone see the game last night between the Storm and Liberty, and the last second no-call at the end???

I saw the play...I was okay with no call...at least from the angles provided. What was really more confusing was how they handled the replay on the OOB call 17 or so seconds before. After changing their call on the court, they retroactively took back a timeout that had been granted to a team. They had one of the officials mic'd up, and the explanation they gave didn't make a lot of sense to me. :confused:

The play will be towards the end of the clip starting at 1:26

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CfBSpVfvEXg" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="349" width="560"></iframe>

I know E. Brewton, the ref in the game, personally and I have that same question for him when he gets back in town. The way I think I understood it is the OOB call was incorrect and the timeout the one team asked for could not have been granted under the recorrected OOB situation. That is why they had that team ask for the timeout again. Or it could have been related to the officials looking at the monitor, and more time being taken. All in all I really don't know either.

As to the original situation, I agree with the no call. Hand on the ball by the defense blocking the shot, then marginal body contact = nothing.

Contact then hand on the ball = then another story.

Except a timeout could have been granted...the ball was dead regardless of whom the ball was awarded to. The was not a suspension of play which is kind of sounds like they were alluding to.

What I think they might of thought was, they should have reviewed the play anyway before they granted a timeout. In that case, a timeout would not be granted as it would be treated as a suspension of play. In the interest of "fairness" they decided to retroactively take back the timeout since they felt they should have reviewed the play first.

This type of play happened in the 2010 NBA Finals in game 3 Los Angeles Lakers vs. Boston Celtics...if I remember correctly, a timeout was granted, the officials went back and reviewed the play and overturned an OOB call on KG. If I also remember correctly, the timeout was not given back.

I think the only question on the play was the body contact. I agree the contact was marginal with everything else being clean. In reality, I think the shooter flailed her arms out, and fell to the ground when she realized the ball was being blocked in an attempt to try and draw the foul.

That makes two of us.

my "twocentsworth" on that play....there is NO foul....

the dunk and the blocked shot are the two most exciting plays in the game. why would we call a foul on marginal contact in either situation (or ANY situation, for that matter)?

The amount of excitement, or lack thereof, is not a factor in determining whether or not there was a foul.

With the benefit of being able to watch the play several times, I have ball contact first, then body contact and no foul. The shooter was also jumping forward and that probably made it look a lot worse than it was.

I can also say that in real time, on the court, it would be awfully tough to swallow the whistle on that play.

The official, however, was in a great position to see the play.

Hmmm, the C was clearly signalling something, before waving it off. The ball wasn't out of bounds yet when her hand went up.

I havent seen this particular play yet, but thats some good stuff to think about. Next level mindset!

I agree. Ball first on a block = nothing, unless severe contact by the body of the defender on the shooter

Do We Really Want to Go Down That Path Again ???
 

Here we go again.

What's your opinion Billy? Just curious.